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.

Greenfield County deer!

Expert replies
by sachindia » Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:27 am
Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County on the grounds that hunting endangers public safety.
Now the deer population in the county is six times what it was before the ban. Deer are invading residential
areas, damaging property and causing motor vehicle accidents that result in serious injury to motorists. Since
there were never any hunting related injuries in the county, clearly the ban was not only unnecessary but has
created a danger to public safety that would not otherwise exist. Which one of the following, if true,
provides the strongest additional support for the conclusion above?
A. In surrounding counties, where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased in the last
eight years.
B. Motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both.
C. When deer populations increase beyond optimal size, disease and malnutrition become more widespread among
the deer herds.
D. In residential areas in the county, many residents provide food and salt for deer.
E. Deer can cause extensive damage to ornamental shrubs and trees by chewing on twigs and saplings.

A talks about Surrounding counties.. why assume that conditions would be same in both counties??

When X causes y, we can strengthen it by saying x actually caused y which is what B does.. it says often results in accidents.. so B must be right?
Regards,
Sach
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by techyrajeev » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:45 am
Sachi,

This is a common GMAT trap. if you see information of choice B is already mentioned in the argument hence Option B is not adding anything new to support the argument.

Choice A is not my favorite choice but looking at other choices, A is the best.
Join the discussion

by natali » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:01 am
sachindia wrote:Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County on the grounds that hunting endangers public safety.
Now the deer population in the county is six times what it was before the ban. Deer are invading residential
areas, damaging property and causing motor vehicle accidents that result in serious injury to motorists. Since
there were never any hunting related injuries in the county, clearly the ban was not only unnecessary but has
created a danger to public safety that would not otherwise exist. Which one of the following, if true,
provides the strongest additional support for the conclusion above?
A. In surrounding counties, where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased in the last
eight years.
B. Motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both.
C. When deer populations increase beyond optimal size, disease and malnutrition become more widespread among
the deer herds.
D. In residential areas in the county, many residents provide food and salt for deer.
E. Deer can cause extensive damage to ornamental shrubs and trees by chewing on twigs and saplings.

A talks about Surrounding counties.. why assume that conditions would be same in both counties??

When X causes y, we can strengthen it by saying x actually caused y which is what B does.. it says often results in accidents.. so B must be right?
i think that you know that C, d,e is out of care,,, between a and b,b just talk about assets' damage,so b didnt talk about public safe so be is out too
Join the discussion

by cat4 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:53 am
The Logic of the ban was that hunting endangers public safety.But the author gave the argument that by banning hunting, public safety actually became endangered(when the number of deers increased) .

Option A supports the above conclusion by giving fact about a location where hunting is permitted and where deer population has not increased(public saftey is not endangered).[/quote]
Join the discussion

by ankit0411 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:44 pm
sachindia wrote:Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County on the grounds that hunting endangers public safety.Now the deer population in the county is six times what it was before the ban. Deer are invading residential areas, damaging property and causing motor vehicle accidents that result in serious injury to motorists. Since there were never any hunting related injuries in the county, clearly the ban was not only unnecessary but has created a danger to public safety that would not otherwise exist. Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest additional support for the conclusion above?

A. In surrounding counties, where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased in the last
eight years.
B. Motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both.
C. When deer populations increase beyond optimal size, disease and malnutrition become more widespread among
the deer herds.
D. In residential areas in the county, many residents provide food and salt for deer.
E. Deer can cause extensive damage to ornamental shrubs and trees by chewing on twigs and saplings.

A talks about Surrounding counties.. why assume that conditions would be same in both counties??

When X causes y, we can strengthen it by saying x actually caused y which is what B does.. it says often results in accidents.. so B must be right?
A draws the best analogy and no other option is close to it.

B - talks about when motorists meet with an accident with the deers- how do you know the deers are causing this and the deers ONLY lead to accidents?

C- Out of scope

D- same as above

E- same as above.

This leave us with only option A
Don't predict future , create it !
Join the discussion