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.

evaluate the conclusion - need help with dis one..

Expert replies
by gmatmarch2010 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:28 am
Scientists have determined that an effective way to lower cholesterol is to eat three servings of whole grains every
day. Studies have shown that the cholesterol levels of people who did so were significantly lower after six months
than were those of people who did not, even though the cholesterol levels of the two groups were the same before
the studies began. Clearly, eating whole grains can have an appreciable effect on cholesterol levels. The answer
to which of the following questions, if true, would be most useful in evaluating the claim about whole
grains above?

a Is it realistic to expect people to eat three servings of whole grains per day?
b Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program?
c Can the same drop in cholesterol be achieved through medication?
d Did the study continue to track the subjects beyond six months?
e Are most consumers aware of the different between whole grains and processed grains?

thanks in advance
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by gmatmarch2010 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:31 am
confused b/w b and c...
Join the discussion

by Osirus@VeritasPrep » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:33 am
I would choose B

A- This is irrelevant. There are a lot of things that are healthy for people that it may not be realistic for them to do.

B- Correct

C- This is irrelevant, regardless of if a pill can duplicate this, the fact would still stand that wholegrain can achieve this.

D- This is irrelevant because the participants could have stopped eating the food after 6 months

E- Consumer awareness is irrelevant because it doesn't evaluate whether the whole grains were responsible for the decrease. If the decrease is valid, then it is easy to advertise and make consumers aware of the differences.
https://www.beatthegmat.com/the-retake-o ... 51414.html

Brandon Dorsey
GMAT Instructor
Veritas Prep

Buy any Veritas Prep book(s) and receive access to 5 Practice Cats for free! Learn More.
Join the discussion

by gmatmachoman » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:36 am
Join the discussion

by komal » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:43 am
gmatmarch2010 wrote:Scientists have determined that an effective way to lower cholesterol is to eat three servings of whole grains every
day. Studies have shown that the cholesterol levels of people who did so were significantly lower after six months
than were those of people who did not, even though the cholesterol levels of the two groups were the same before
the studies began. Clearly, eating whole grains can have an appreciable effect on cholesterol levels. The answer
to which of the following questions, if true, would be most useful in evaluating the claim about whole
grains above?

a Is it realistic to expect people to eat three servings of whole grains per day?
Incorrect : Issue is not about expecting ppl to eat three servings of whole grains per day. Hence Eliminated.

b Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program?
Correct : If one group exercised vigorously and other group exercised moderately, then the results would differ even after eating same amount of whole grain servings per day.

c Can the same drop in cholesterol be achieved through medication?
Incorrect : Medication is irrelevant to the scope of the argument.

d Did the study continue to track the subjects beyond six months?
Incorrect : Issue is only about the study and its results.

e Are most consumers aware of the different between whole grains and processed grains?
Incorrect : Out of scope.
Join the discussion

by thephoenix » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:19 am
a technique i usually follow for such question is for each option check the effect of a YES ans and NO ans on the conclusion
if the conclusion's validity is getting effected then that option is correct. Now lets implement this here

a Is it realistic to expect people to eat three servings of whole grains per day?
YES:people can eat 3 servings of whole grains / day so the desired effect is acheivable as concluded
NO:people can eat 5 or 10 per day then conlusion still holds
so validity is not effected
hence incorrect

b Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program?
YES: groups were involved in same exercise program so the conclusion is true
NO: the group who eats servings goes through a rigorous program than other or vic-e-versa so the conclusion is false bcoz of diff in exercise
therefore validity gets aafected
hence correct

c Can the same drop in cholesterol be achieved through medication?
YES: doesn't effect conclusion
NO:doesn't effect conclusion

d Did the study continue to track the subjects beyond six months?
YES: no effect
NO: no effect

e Are most consumers aware of the different between whole grains and processed grains?
YES: no eefect
NO: no effect

hence B sud be the ans
Join the discussion

by sumanr84 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:20 am
IMO : B ( other than B only D is contender but that 6 month thing scraped it..)

My thought process goes inline with thephoenix :)
Join the discussion

by gmatmarch2010 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:28 am
@ phoenix

I also follow the same strategy for Evaluate type questions and I am confused with B and C.

Conclusion: Clearly, eating whole grains can have an appreciable effect on cholesterol levels.

In this case I will consider another alternative which can also help to reduce the cholesterol levels. B tells us about the difference in exercise program.

For C:

Can the same drop in cholesterol be achieved through medication?

Yes - This weakens the argument, because like an exercice program, medication can also help to reduce the cholesterol levels.

No - This strengthen the argument as it is not medication but the whole grains which has helped to reduce the cholesterol levels.

FYI - IMO - B

I know I am wrong but please help me to improve the way in which I am thinking.

Thanks Again Guys
Join the discussion

by sumanr84 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:36 am
gmatmarch2010 wrote:@ phoenix

I also follow the same strategy for Evaluate type questions and I am confused with B and C.

Conclusion: Clearly, eating whole grains can have an appreciable effect on cholesterol levels.

In this case I will consider another alternative which can also help to reduce the cholesterol levels. B tells us about the difference in exercise program.

For C:

Can the same drop in cholesterol be achieved through medication?

Yes - This weakens the argument, because like an exercice program, medication can also help to reduce the cholesterol levels.

No - This strengthen the argument as it is not medication but the whole grains which has helped to reduce the cholesterol levels.

FYI - IMO - B

I know I am wrong but please help me to improve the way in which I am thinking.

Thanks Again Guys
When evaluating an argument, don't go out of scope.

Medication has been brought into picture mainly as a trap !! There is no mention of medication in the argument.

You have to make sure that the all other condition remained same for the people under examination..i.e. they ate equally and did same exercise.
I am on a break !!
Join the discussion

by gmatmarch2010 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:47 am
the line - 'all other condition remained same for the people under examination' clears my doubt..

Thanks buddy.
Join the discussion

by jeffedwards » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:31 pm
Definitely B

You are asked to evaluate the claim about whole grains. The claim is "Eating whole grains can have an appreciable effect on cholesterol levels".

B asks if all things were equal, or could there have been another reason for lowered cholesterol...exercise.
Join the discussion

by mgmt_gmat » Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:41 am
Clearly (B).. all other are out of scope. (B) clearly states that two grpoups have passed through same experimental condition.
Join the discussion

by sallespadua » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:30 pm
send us the QA. I'm also confused between B and C.
Join the discussion