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.

CR Question 1

Expert replies
by leo » Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:50 am
Last year the county park system failed to generate enough revenue to cover its costs. Any business should be closed if it is unprofitable, but county parks are not businesses. Therefore, the fact that county parks are unprofitable does not by itself justify closing them.
The pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most closely paralleled in which one of the following?
(A) A prime-time television series should be canceled if it fails to attract a large audience, but the small audience attracted by the documentary series is not sufficient reason to cancel it, since it does not air during prime time.
(B) Although companies that manufacture and market automobiles in the United States must meet stringent air-quality standards, the OKESA company should be exempt from these standards since it manufactures bicycles in addition to automobiles.
(C) Although the province did not specifically intend to prohibit betting on horse races when it passed a law prohibiting gambling, such betting should be regarded as being prohibited because it is a form of gambling.
(D) Even though cockatiels are not, strictly speaking, members of the parrot family, they should be fed the same diet as most parrots since the cockatiel’s dietary needs are so similar to those of parrots.
(E) Since minors are not subject to the same criminal laws as are adults, they should not be subject to the same sorts of punishments as those that apply to adults.


Answer please and why?
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by isisalaska » Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:39 am
I would go with E)

A minor has committed a crime, any adult committing a crime should be punished, but since minors are not adults they are excluded for the same type of punishment
Isis Alaska
Join the discussion

by rayman6 » Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:05 pm
I would go with
(A) A prime-time television series should be canceled if it fails to attract a large audience, but the small audience attracted by the documentary series is not sufficient reason to cancel it, since it does not air during prime time.
Join the discussion

by jrbrown2 » Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:44 pm
I say (E)

The statement is differentiating b/w parks and businesses and that difference is used to disprove a certain course of action.

(E) differentiates b/w minors and adults, explaining that minors are not subject to the same criminal laws as are adults. Because of this difference, a certain course of action should not be followed (i.e. same sorts of punishments)
Join the discussion

by Jhyphi » Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:42 am
I'm going with A.

The problem I see with E is that it doesn't parallel it quite as well as A. E requires a leap from laws to consequences that is never stated.

The argument is since A+B then C, but A+D does not equal C.
Join the discussion

by jan08 » Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:30 pm
IMO E..

OA pl?
Join the discussion

by abhishek_6sigma » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:29 am
I say E.
Join the discussion

by simplyjat » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:41 pm
How can we differentiate between law and punishments? If something is considered a crime according to the law, the law will also prescribe a reasonable punishment as well. And using the same cause-effect relationship lawyers/cops are able to predict the sentence; when they say "You are looking at 7 years minimum". So if we have juvenile laws, they will also prescribe punishment keeping the age in mind.

Forget about parallelism with the stem, reasoning in E is flawed, and thus can never be the correct answer.

The correct answer is A
simplyjat
Join the discussion

by PAB2706 » Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:19 pm
can anyone pls confirm the answer for this one..
Join the discussion

I THINK B

by sogmat » Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm
WHAT IS OA
Join the discussion

by doclkk » Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:20 am
I say A

Last year the county park system failed to generate enough revenue to cover its costs. Any business should be closed if it is unprofitable, but county parks are not businesses. Therefore, the fact that county parks are unprofitable does not by itself justify closing them.

TRANSLATION

B sucked. If anything A sucks then they should be closed, but B is not A. Therefore, since B sucks no reason to be held to same standard of A.

The pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most closely paralleled in which one of the following?

(A) A prime-time television series should be canceled if it fails to attract a large audience, but the small audience attracted by the documentary series is not sufficient reason to cancel it, since it does not air during prime time.

If A sucks, it should be closed. B sucks, but since it is not A, it should not be closed.

(E) Since minors are not subject to the same criminal laws as are adults, they should not be subject to the same sorts of punishments as those that apply to adults.

B not same as A because they are not A.

This is a medium question. Just as a note - all the reasoning above isn't exactly what you call blacks law dictionary air tight. So flawed or unflawed reasoning isn't really what you're looking for.

...

It's A.
Join the discussion

by ashley.com » Sun May 15, 2016 3:54 am
I would go with E as the correct answer
Join the discussion