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.

Identify Conclusion

Expert replies
by gauravgundal » Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:48 pm
I have finding it hard to understand the correct conclusion of below argument :


The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year's budget. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?
[spoiler]A. Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget.
B. The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.
C. Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.
D.On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.
E. Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.[/spoiler]
I can say "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy therefore the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy"

Or

"The gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy therefore The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy"

This question is from Manhattan CAT
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by mv12 » Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:19 pm
answer should be B. As the argument emphasized the importance of Pill grants in improving the acccess to grants for disadvantaged students . But B simply rebuked this argument by saying that most neediest students dontt even know their eligibility to receive such kind of grants.
Join the discussion

by Chandra Gurrum » Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:40 pm
IMO: A
The conclusion is "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy".
Reason is, they failed to increase the Pell grants which supports higher education for disadvanted students.

What if, the congress allotted more budget to some other programs that targeted at improving access for disadvantaged students. If this is true, then the conclusion that congress have practised bad public policy is weakened. Option 'A' correctly defines this.
Join the discussion

by vk_vinayak » Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:19 pm
Here is the explanation from MGMAT staff: https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pos ... html#17125
-----------------------------------------

The conclusion is that current admin has practiced bad policy.

The logic of the argument is:
1. Current admin has weakened pell grants
2. Pell grants provide access to higher ed for disadvantaged
3. Access to higher ed is nec to elevate to middle class
4. Elevation is nec to make democracy stable
5. Therefore, admin has practiced bad policy

I can see why B would definitely be tempting. But it is not as good an answer as A. We are told as fact that "Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances" (stmnt 2 above). So even if the neediest often lack information (as in B), we can still presume that enough people use the grants to make a difference. There is nothing inconsistent about those facts. Therefore, this doesn't weaken the conclusion too seriously.

Choice A weakens it badly. Choice A gives us an alternate route to 3. Once we accept A as true, it no longer matters whether the Pell grants have decreased. The only problem with reducing Pell grants (decreased access to higher ed) is no longer a problem, since access to higher ed will be better funded, not more poorly funded.
- VK

I will (Learn. Recognize. Apply)
Join the discussion

by lunarpower » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:21 am
i received a private message about this thread.
gauravgundal wrote:I can say "The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy therefore the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy"
this is backward.

Or
"The gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy therefore The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy"
this is correct.

just ask yourself which statement is the reason for which other statement.
the point of the argument is that the congressional decision is bad public policy because it will cause the gap to widen. (it makes no sense to say that the gap will widen because the decision is bad public policy.) therefore, interpretation #1 is wrong and #2 is right.

analogy:
your decision to leave home at 5 p.m. was a bad one. at that hour, there will be tons of traffic.
same thing going on here.
there will be lots of traffic; therefore, your decision was a bad one --> correct interpretation
your decision was a bad one; therefore, there will be lots of traffic --> nonsense interpretation
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Join the discussion