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
Start free 5-day trial
Read 559 reviewsTarget Test Prep

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

difference of opinion in answer choice

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:54 am
by speedupgmat » Mon Aug 08, 2011 9:33 am
During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members of the United States armed forces died overseas. On the basis the those figures, it can be concluded that it was not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to stay at home as a civilian.

Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above?

A. Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United State in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas

B. Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed
forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths

C. Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries

D. Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths

E. Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces


I was thinking B would be a better option but the answer is D. How?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:12 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by rppala90 » Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:17 pm
The question is to weaken the conclusion.
So the answer should support that it is dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces than to stay at home as civilian.

option D is the answer because it compares the ratio of ((1000 * death rate in armed forces) / total number of people in armed forces) to ((1000 * death rate in civilians) / total number of civilians in united states).

The numerators here are almost same from the question.
Denominator of civilians will be very high compared to armed forces denominator.
Which results in higher value for armed forces ratio and hence it weakens the conclusion clearly.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:55 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 17 times

by XLogic » Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:57 pm
rppala90 wrote:The question is to weaken the conclusion.
So the answer should support that it is dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces than to stay at home as civilian.

option D is the answer because it compares the ratio of ((1000 * death rate in armed forces) / total number of people in armed forces) to ((1000 * death rate in civilians) / total number of civilians in united states).

The numerators here are almost same from the question.
Denominator of civilians will be very high compared to armed forces denominator.
Which results in higher value for armed forces ratio and hence it weakens the conclusion clearly.
Nice analysis. I thought of this questions as "Which answer choice will help us identify the FLAW in this argument?".

Assumption: The author assumed that because the number of deaths in both groups was relatively close, that the likelihood of deaths in both groups was also relatively close.

Flaw: The author failed to consider that the total number of civilians was much larger than the total number of soldiers in the armed forces.

Resolution: the author should compare the death rates (# dead and total) of both groups, not just the number of deaths.

As pointed out earlier, (D) Helps us make this comparison:

For example,
> Civilian death rate (300 K / 200 million) to Soldier death rate (400 K / 10 million)
> .015% to 4%
my post helped --> thank me!
don't thank me --> my post = what the..??
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1