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.

DS - 1000 CR

Expert replies
by Cybermusings » Sun May 13, 2007 5:07 am
No nation can long survive unless its people are united by a common tongue. For proof, we need only consider Canada, which is being torn asunder by conflicts between French-speaking Quebec and the other provinces, which are dominated by English speakers.
Which of the following, if true, most effectively challenges the author’s conclusion?
(A) Conflicts over language have led to violent clashes between the Basque-speaking minority in Spain and the Spanish-speaking majority.
(B) Proposals to declare English the official language of the United States have met with resistance from members of Hispanic and other minority groups.
(C) Economic and political differences, along with linguistic ones, have contributed to the provincial conflicts in Canada.
(D) The public of India, in existence sine 1948, has a population that speaks hundreds of different, though related, languages.
(E) Switzerland has survived for nearly a thousand years as a home for speakers of three different languages


I got this one right...but I thought some choices were close!
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Re: DS - 1000 CR

by jayhawk2001 » Sun May 13, 2007 8:35 am
Cybermusings wrote:No nation can long survive unless its people are united by a common tongue. For proof, we need only consider Canada, which is being torn asunder by conflicts between French-speaking Quebec and the other provinces, which are dominated by English speakers.
Which of the following, if true, most effectively challenges the author’s conclusion?
(A) Conflicts over language have led to violent clashes between the Basque-speaking minority in Spain and the Spanish-speaking majority.
(B) Proposals to declare English the official language of the United States have met with resistance from members of Hispanic and other minority groups.
(C) Economic and political differences, along with linguistic ones, have contributed to the provincial conflicts in Canada.
(D) The public of India, in existence sine 1948, has a population that speaks hundreds of different, though related, languages.
(E) Switzerland has survived for nearly a thousand years as a home for speakers of three different languages


I got this one right...but I thought some choices were close!
I'll go with E

I guess this one is tricky because of the prior context we have in our
heads :-)

A and B strengthen the argument

C tells us why Canada had problems but it doesn't directly attack the
main conclusion i.e. no country can survive unless people have a
common tongue

D tells us that the languages are related. So it doesn't weaken the
conclusion

E gives evidence to directly attack the main conclusion.
Join the discussion

Re: DS - 1000 CR

by bww » Sun May 13, 2007 10:45 am
Cybermusings wrote:No nation can long survive unless its people are united by a common tongue. For proof, we need only consider Canada, which is being torn asunder by conflicts between French-speaking Quebec and the other provinces, which are dominated by English speakers.
Which of the following, if true, most effectively challenges the author’s conclusion?
(A) Conflicts over language have led to violent clashes between the Basque-speaking minority in Spain and the Spanish-speaking majority.
(B) Proposals to declare English the official language of the United States have met with resistance from members of Hispanic and other minority groups.
(C) Economic and political differences, along with linguistic ones, have contributed to the provincial conflicts in Canada.
(D) The public of India, in existence sine 1948, has a population that speaks hundreds of different, though related, languages.
(E) Switzerland has survived for nearly a thousand years as a home for speakers of three different languages


I got this one right...but I thought some choices were close!
Yep, C is a close one, but slightly out of scope. A strengthens author's argument. B implies that it would be difficult to execute author's assertion; not relevant. D is a weak possibility--the explicit use of "in existence since 1948" implies that India's unity of multiple languages is rather nascent. E is best.
Join the discussion

by agganitk » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:51 pm
Clearly C or E makes the cut.
The question is asking which option most effectively challenges the conclusion than which option refutes or undermines the author's conclusion.

E is totally refuting the conclusion
C is challenging the conclusion by adding that language is not the only reason for the conflicts and also it refers to Canada and not a different country as in E.


Instructors !!.. plz help on this.
Join the discussion

by gmatroundabout » Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:27 am
Experts,

If C would have read as follows:
Economic and political differences have contributed to the provincial conflicts in Canada.

Would this statement make C a better contender? Basically, I want to know whether we can weaken an argument by attacking the authenticity of an existing premise on which the conclusion rests?
Join the discussion

by selango » Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:08 am
IMO C.

Author's conclusion is conflict in canada is due to language.

Option C tell us that also economic and political difference are the reasons for the conflict.This undermines the author conclusion that conflict is due to language.

Option E does undermines the author argument(No nation can survive unless united by common tongue) but not the conclusion

If we are asked to undermine the author argument then option E is correct.
Join the discussion

by paridhi » Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:49 am
selango wrote:IMO C.

Author's conclusion is conflict in canada is due to language.

Option C tell us that also economic and political difference are the reasons for the conflict.This undermines the author conclusion that conflict is due to language.

Option E does undermines the author argument(No nation can survive unless united by common tongue) but not the conclusion

If we are asked to undermine the author argument then option E is correct.
Author's conclusion is that "No country can survive...". Canada is just an example he has quoted shown by "For proof, we need only consider Canada..."

IMO E
Join the discussion

by kvcpk » Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:08 am
IMO E.

C and E are close.. But in C,"along with linguistic ones" tells us again that there is issue with different language speaking people..

So C supports the author.. Hence E
Join the discussion

by jube » Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:21 pm
I think it should be E.

In this case the conclusion is that no nation can long survive unless..... The Canada reference is given as a supporting evidence for that argument. Even though C attacks the Canada premise, it doesn't weaken the conclusion as much as E does.

The way I'm thinking - if the author's conclusion was BASED upon the Canada reference then C would have been the right answer but since he merely gives it as a supporting evidence E should be the answer. (I say supporting evidence because of the word choice, "For proof, we need only consider Canada,...." which implies he has already drawn the conclusion and is just looking for an example to support it. He's not BASING his conclusion on this.)

What is the OA?
Join the discussion

by sumanr84 » Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:21 am
Cybermusings wrote:No nation can long survive unless its people are united by a common tongue. For proof, we need only consider Canada, which is being torn asunder by conflicts between French-speaking Quebec and the other provinces, which are dominated by English speakers.
Which of the following, if true, most effectively challenges the author�s conclusion?
(A) Conflicts over language have led to violent clashes between the Basque-speaking minority in Spain and the Spanish-speaking majority.
(B) Proposals to declare English the official language of the United States have met with resistance from members of Hispanic and other minority groups.
(C) Economic and political differences, along with linguistic ones, have contributed to the provincial conflicts in Canada.
(D) The public of India, in existence sine 1948, has a population that speaks hundreds of different, though related, languages.
(E) Switzerland has survived for nearly a thousand years as a home for speakers of three different languages


I got this one right...but I thought some choices were close!
IMO:E
Eliminated contenders based on few words from the argument, "No nation can long survive..". Author means that nations can survive though NOT longer. Since, Switzerland has survived for 1000 years so this definitely weakens Author's claim the most.
C only attacks on the example that Author has used to substantiate his stance, but E directly KILLs the CONCLUSION and is more devastating.
I am on a break !!
Join the discussion

by paddle_sweep » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:56 am
Good question.
Join the discussion

by atrayee345 » Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:46 am
Option A and option B strengthen the argument.Option C tells us why Canada had problems but it doesn't directly attack the main conclusion i.e. no country can survive unless people have a common tongue. Option D tells us that the languages are related. So it doesn't weaken the conclusion. Option E gives evidence to directly attack the main conclusion. Hence (e).
Join the discussion