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.

housing prices

Expert replies

by Domnu » Thu May 28, 2009 9:12 am
gmatplayer wrote:"Must" in (B) is too extreme

Statement never says or implies "Only significant factor" so (D) cannot be inferred

(C) on the other hand may imply:
When there was significant drop in interest last year" prices did not increase at all", so price might have decreased a little (possible). So they tend to rise & fall together can be the inferrence.
I would have selected (C)
This isn't true though... it doesn't agree with what Mark stated; choice C) implies that if interest values rises, so do house value prices, and if interest values fall, so do house value prices. This was not what Mark deduced from Ron's argument.
Have you wondered how you could have found such a treasure? -T
Join the discussion

by gmatplayer » Fri May 29, 2009 6:43 am
It was not explicitely stated but if you add following sentense after his deduction it could make sense
"It actually dropped little"
Join the discussion

by ghacker » Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:30 pm
Ronald: According to my analysis of the national economy, housing prices should not increase during the next six months unless interest rates drop significantly.
Mark: I disagree. One year ago, when interest rates last fell significantly, housing prices did not increase at all.
It can be inferred from the conversation above that Mark has interpreted Ronald’s statement to mean that

Ronald says that if the interst rates didnot rise ,then there wont be a housing price increase

Mark disagree with R , because he misinterprits what marks says (misreads the sufficient and necessary conditions).M gives the example(counter example) because he thinks that interest rate drop will cause the housing prices to increase .............which is not what R wants to say


So ans = B
Join the discussion

by wishkaro » Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:47 pm
17. Ronald: According to my analysis of the national economy, housing prices should not increase during the next six months unless interest rates drop significantly.
Mark: I disagree. One year ago, when interest rates last fell significantly, housing prices did not increase at all.
It can be inferred from the conversation above that Mark has interpreted Ronald’s statement to mean that
(A) housing prices will rise only if interest rates fall
(B) if interest rates fall, housing prices must rise
(C) interest rates and housing prices tend to rise and fall together
(D) interest rates are the only significant economic factor affecting housing prices
(E) interest rates are likely to fall significantly in the next six months

IMO C...

By POE
Golden rule .. avoid extrem word in CR (only, most, all.. etc)
This Elliminate options A, D,
B: support to Ronal's arg not Mark's
E: Hypothetical ...

Hence C and it also support Mark's arg.
Join the discussion

Explanation with contrapositives

by turbo jet » Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:23 pm
INFERENCE QUESTIONS: TIPS

In infer questions, the common answer traps are:

a. False contrapositive statements
eg. A implies B (If A then B)
The contrapositive of this statement is always true. False contrapositives are not
necessarily true.

Contrapositive of the above example is Not B implies Not A. (If not B Then not A)
Any other statement is not necessarily true

Tip: For contrapositive, reverse the equation and signs both. Contrapositive of a statement is always true


b. If Universal Information is given. We can only infer (some) from it that will be true

c. If some/particular info is given, we cannot infer ALL and NOT SOME


Very imp: We need to avoid not necessarily true/could be true statements. Infer qs are always of the nature that must be true


Correct Answer choice: B


A:Incorrect because it is the false contrapositive of Mark's logic

B:Correct (Here the Answer can be derived directly from Mark's logic and no contrapositive are required. However it helps to understand this concept for solving more complicated twisted language questions )
Ronald logic= If no fall in interest Then no increase in house price
contrapositive that must be true: If increase in house price then fall in interest

Mark logic= If fall in interest Then increase in prices.
It is a false contrapositive. Hence this logic cannot be inferred from Ronald's statement.
This tells us that Mark has interpreted Ronald's statement incorrectly


C:Incorrect because Ronald's logic and Mark's logic gives an indirect relationship whereas Answer C gives a direct relationship.

D:Incorrect because out of scope of stimulus (significant economic factor)

E:Incorrect because out of scope of stimulus ( next 6 months is not talked about by Mark. He is basing his logic on last one year)

Cheers
Turbo Jet
:)
Join the discussion

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 7:40 pm
Looking at it now, C makes sense
Join the discussion

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 7:41 pm
I feel the answer will be B
Join the discussion