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

Household's Cash Income

Expert replies
by imskpwr » Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:28 am
The United States government uses only a household's cash income before taxes to determine whether that household falls below the poverty line in a given year; capital gains, non-cash government benefits, and tax credits are not included. However, yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure of a given household's disposable income. For example, retirees who live off of capital gains from an extensive portfolio could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet be classified by the government as living in "poverty" because this income is not included in the calculation.

Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty?
a)For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.
b)While the government’s calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.
c)Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government’s calculation method.
d)Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.
e)The government’s calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.

[spoiler]I don't know why c is better than e. "e" is a more straightforward reason.[/spoiler]
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by avik.ch » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:35 am
The United States government uses only a household's cash income before taxes to determine whether that household falls below the poverty line in a given year; capital gains, non-cash government benefits, and tax credits are not included. - facts
However, yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure of a given household's disposable income. -- conclusion
For example, retirees who live off of capital gains from an extensive portfolio could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet be classified by the government as living in "poverty" because this income is not included in the calculation. - an example is always an additional premise stated to bolster an opinion/theory....here its giving an example a case how the conclusion stands


Here we are not asked to weaken the stimulus - we are asked to invalidate the goverment's calculation method !!
Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty

So C stand out and E falls.

Hope this helps !!
Join the discussion

by agarwalmanoj2000 » Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:12 pm
I don't know why c is better than e. "e" is a more straightforward reason.
Goal is to find an option which strengthens/validate the claim that govt. calculation method must be changed.

e)The government’s calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.

This is already given in the argument that existing calculation method does not consider non cash income, so people who have substantial assets are also considered living in poverty. Option E just restates a premise of the argument, so it cannot strengthen. Information already given in the argument cannot strengthen or weaken an argument.
Join the discussion

by mankey » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:49 am
Request some expert to kindly help on this one.

Regards.
Join the discussion

by vikram4689 » Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:49 pm
Mankey-
Manoj explained it well. Reason why C > E (actually E is not even in league of CORRECT ans) depends on understanding of the QUESTION.
Question is which option INTENSIFY that govt should change its approach. Now think, to say a measurement method needs to be changed we need to show some evidence that results of current method are INCORRECT. ONLY C DOES THIS.
E states a point that "government’s calculation method also erroneously counts..." THIS is only a statement BUT not an evidence. Take it this way - Different people may raise different points but only who SHOWS/PROVES its point will WIN.
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Join the discussion