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

Flaw in the reasoning!!!

Expert replies
by 2010gmat » Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:06 pm
On some hot days the smog in Hillview reaches
unsafe levels, and on some hot days the wind blows
into Hillview from the east. Therefore, on some days
when the wind blows into Hillview from the east, the
smog in Hillview reaches unsafe levels.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the
argument
(A) mistakes a condition that sometimes
accompanies unsafe levels of smog for a
condition that necessarily accompanies
unsafe levels of smog
(B) fails to recognize that one set might have some
members in common with each of two others
even though those two other sets have no
members in common with each other
(C) uses the key term “unsafe” in one sense in a
premise and in another sense in the
conclusion
(D) contains a premise that is implausible unless
the conclusion is presumed to be true
(E) infers a particular causal relation from a
correlation that could be explained in a
variety of other ways
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by sunnyjohn » Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:52 pm
IMO: E

X and y
there when X, Y

A was a close encounter..but i think it is not mention that y MUST happen.
Join the discussion

by 2010gmat » Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:19 pm
Can we conclude that this is the case of causality?? or author is simply saying that 2 events happen together??

How to identify the causality??
Join the discussion

by AN24 » Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:12 am
I am confused between B and E.
but looking at E again, i do not see a co-relation in the argument.

help required!
Join the discussion

by badpoem » Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:57 am
How about A? Mistakes a condition that smog levels are unsafe when some days are hot for the condition that smog levels are unsafe when some days are necessarily hot.

E is a generalisation of A. Or where am I going wrong?

Btw, where is this question from?
Join the discussion

by GmatKiss » Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:49 am
How about D?
Join the discussion

by n@resh » Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:55 pm
2010gmat wrote:On some hot days the smog in Hillview reaches
unsafe levels, and on some hot days the wind blows
into Hillview from the east. Therefore, on some days
when the wind blows into Hillview from the east, the
smog in Hillview reaches unsafe levels.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the
argument
(A) mistakes a condition that sometimes
accompanies unsafe levels of smog for a
condition that necessarily accompanies
unsafe levels of smog
(B) fails to recognize that one set might have some
members in common with each of two others
even though those two other sets have no
members in common with each other
(C) uses the key term “unsafe” in one sense in a
premise and in another sense in the
conclusion
(D) contains a premise that is implausible unless
the conclusion is presumed to be true
(E) infers a particular causal relation from a
correlation that could be explained in a
variety of other ways
Well the Ans must be: B!..the word 'Some' is the culprit!
Join the discussion

by force5 » Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:04 pm
some question guys... Can't be a GMAT question since its reasoning is beyond GMAT scope. Well got stuck into it because i started reading it.

I think the answer should be B. seems more like a quant question to me. think about it...!!
Join the discussion

by ColumbiaVC » Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:22 pm
Join the discussion

by killer1387 » Sat Sep 03, 2011 5:42 am
E +1
Join the discussion

by navami » Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:30 am
E +1
This time no looking back!!!
Navami
Join the discussion