Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
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.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
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 Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemandStart 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

difference of opinion in answer choice

Expert replies
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?
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

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.
Join the discussion

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..??
Join the discussion