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.

HOUSEHOLDS DEBT-CR

Expert replies
by ansh.kumar » Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:43 am
3. Household indebtedness, which some theorists regard as causing recession, was high preceding the recent recession, but so was the value of assets owned by households. Admittedly, if most of the assets were owned by quite affluent households, and most of the debt was owed by low-income households, high household debt levels could have been the cause of the recession despite high asset values: low-income households might have decreased spending in order to pay off debts while the quite affluent ones might simply have failed to increase spending. But, in fact, quite affluent people must have owed most of the household debt, since money is not lent to those without assets. Therefore, the real cause must lie elsewhere.


Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument?
(A) Prior to the recent recession, middle-income households owed enough debt that they had begun to decrease spending.
(B) The total value of the economy's household debt is exceeded by the total value of assets held by households.
(C) Low-income households somewhat decreased their spending during the recent recession.
(D) During a recession the affluent usually borrow money only in order to purchase assets.
(E) Household debt is the category of debt least likely to affect the economy
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by ashish2104 » Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:14 am
I will go with option B.

I am caught between A and B, but b implies that tota household debt> total asset value. As per the argument, there is another cause for recession. But B shows that household debt caused recession.

E) strengthens the argument
D) 'only' flagged me
C) already mentioned in argument


What is the OA?
Join the discussion

by reply2spg » Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:49 am
I will go with D. Frankly, I didn't understand the passage. What is the source of this question?
ansh.kumar wrote:3. Household indebtedness, which some theorists regard as causing recession, was high preceding the recent recession, but so was the value of assets owned by households. Admittedly, if most of the assets were owned by quite affluent households, and most of the debt was owed by low-income households, high household debt levels could have been the cause of the recession despite high asset values: low-income households might have decreased spending in order to pay off debts while the quite affluent ones might simply have failed to increase spending. But, in fact, quite affluent people must have owed most of the household debt, since money is not lent to those without assets. Therefore, the real cause must lie elsewhere.


Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument?
(A) Prior to the recent recession, middle-income households owed enough debt that they had begun to decrease spending.
(B) The total value of the economy's household debt is exceeded by the total value of assets held by households.
(C) Low-income households somewhat decreased their spending during the recent recession.
(D) During a recession the affluent usually borrow money only in order to purchase assets.
(E) Household debt is the category of debt least likely to affect the economy
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Join the discussion

by adi_800 » Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:22 am
The passage contained many details but probably understandable conclusion.
The conclusion is house indebtedness is in fact not the cause of the economic recession. Something else is.

N we want to weaken this conclusion by showing that yes, indebtedness is the real cause and no alternative cause exists.
B says that debt > value of assets. So, B is the answer...
Join the discussion

by ansh.kumar » Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:02 am
hei, THIS IS A GMAT PREP QUESTION
and the answer is NOT = B.
Join the discussion

by FightWithGMAT » Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:20 am
ansh.kumar wrote:3. Household indebtedness, which some theorists regard as causing recession, was high preceding the recent recession, but so was the value of assets owned by households. Admittedly, if most of the assets were owned by quite affluent households, and most of the debt was owed by low-income households, high household debt levels could have been the cause of the recession despite high asset values: low-income households might have decreased spending in order to pay off debts while the quite affluent ones might simply have failed to increase spending. But, in fact, quite affluent people must have owed most of the household debt, since money is not lent to those without assets. Therefore, the real cause must lie elsewhere.


Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument?
(A) Prior to the recent recession, middle-income households owed enough debt that they had begun to decrease spending.
(B) The total value of the economy's household debt is exceeded by the total value of assets held by households.
(C) Low-income households somewhat decreased their spending during the recent recession.
(D) During a recession the affluent usually borrow money only in order to purchase assets.
(E) Household debt is the category of debt least likely to affect the economy
IMO A

A mentions the alternative reason that strengthen the fact that house indebtedness is the real cause of recession
Join the discussion

by ansh.kumar » Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:24 am
OA is = A
HEI , FIGHTWITHGMAT can u plz explain the option A
THNKS
Join the discussion

by deeyah » Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:33 am
I think the answer is B
Join the discussion

by diebeatsthegmat » Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:36 am
FightWithGMAT wrote:
ansh.kumar wrote:3. Household indebtedness, which some theorists regard as causing recession, was high preceding the recent recession, but so was the value of assets owned by households. Admittedly, if most of the assets were owned by quite affluent households, and most of the debt was owed by low-income households, high household debt levels could have been the cause of the recession despite high asset values: low-income households might have decreased spending in order to pay off debts while the quite affluent ones might simply have failed to increase spending. But, in fact, quite affluent people must have owed most of the household debt, since money is not lent to those without assets. Therefore, the real cause must lie elsewhere.


Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument?
(A) Prior to the recent recession, middle-income households owed enough debt that they had begun to decrease spending.
(B) The total value of the economy's household debt is exceeded by the total value of assets held by households.
(C) Low-income households somewhat decreased their spending during the recent recession.
(D) During a recession the affluent usually borrow money only in order to purchase assets.
(E) Household debt is the category of debt least likely to affect the economy
how come the OA is A? A seems out of scope.... i dont understand, please explain
IMO A

A mentions the alternative reason that strengthen the fact that house indebtedness is the real cause of recession
Join the discussion

by FightWithGMAT » Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:41 am
ansh.kumar wrote:OA is = A
HEI , FIGHTWITHGMAT can u plz explain the option A
THNKS
see.....

first the argument says that most of the debts would have been with Low income people and most of the assets with affluent people, leading to decreased spending----a cause of recession

but then the arguments takes a 180 degree turn and says that this was not the case (most of debts was with affluent people)-------so recession is not the result of the household indebtedness. there must be some other cause.

attack this conclusion and prove that household indebtedness, ultimately leading to low spending, is, in fact, the cause of this recession.

A does it most appropriately.

Now, actually we need not to analyze all this KAHANI...............

Simply use POE.

B--very general statement: whose total indebtedness and whose total assets. It does account for most of the elements of the argument (assets and debt distribution among people------important facts of the argument).

C-- Talks abt something during recession. whereas the argument says prior to recession.
D-- Same as in C
E-- talks abt economy-----we need to figure out the cause of the recent recession------no need to worry about the economy.
Join the discussion