BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

critical reasoning city official

Expert replies
by nidhis.1408 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:10 pm
City official: In order to revitalize our city's downtown business district, we should increase the number of police officers that patrol the district during business hours. Three years ago, the city reduced the total size of its police force by nearly 20 percent. Since then, retail businesses in the district have experienced a steady decline in revenue.
Any of the following, if true, would be an effective criticism of the city official's recommendation EXCEPT:
A. Two years ago, the city established more rigorous standards for the retention and hiring of its police officers.
B. New businesses offering products or services similar to those in the district have emerged outside the district recently.
C. The number of people who reside in the district has not changed signifi- cantly over the last three years.
D. Businesses operating in the city but outside the district have experienced declining revenues during the last three years.
E. Some of the city's police officers patrol areas outside as well as inside the district.

i couldn't understand the meaning of the passage. was wondering if something is missing in the paragraph.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by shankar.ashwin » Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:27 pm
Meaning rephrased:

Officials explain in order to revive the city's business district, number of police officers should be increased.
Also provides and example citing decrease in number of policemen caused decline in business revenue.

An effective criticism would be to explain cops could not have caused decrease in revenues (or) provide other explanations for the decrease in revenue.

A: Standards of cops have gone up, this could lead only to better revenues definitely not decrease.

B: Provides an alternative reason for decline in revenues.

D: We are concerned about cops in a district, but this one says cities outside the district have experienced decline in revenues, so cops cannot be a reason for the decline.

E: Does this mean they don't patrol the districts, well it does not say so. Also it talks only about few policemen.

C: this one does not make any claim, nor does it provide an alternate reason for decline. Also this is the only statement which could possibly support the officials claim of cops causing decline in revenues. The officials could explain "Look there has not been a decrease in population, so the decrease in cops has led to this situation". If someone provides a stat that the population has not significantly decreased, he tends to agree with the official. This one definitely cannot be a criticism against the official. C IMO
Join the discussion

by nidhis.1408 » Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:40 am
Thanks a lot! i certainly didn't think in this direction!
Join the discussion

by mir.yahya » Sat Nov 05, 2011 8:50 am
Aren't we supposed to be looking for the option that doesn't criticize City official's recommendation?

I need different approach to this. I am getting explanation given above.
Join the discussion