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.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE AWARDS 2026

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

GMATLiveTeach Starts Oct 17
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Chris Peckover, 100th-Percentile GMAT Scorer

Oct 17 · Chris Peckover
Sat · 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM ET
Oct 20 · Chris Peckover
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Oct 25 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 1:00 to 4:00 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
EALiveTeachOnDemand 5 seats left Start anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
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 Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget 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.

Impact Craters!!!

Expert replies
by dv2020 » Mon May 30, 2011 5:59 am
Impact craters caused by meteorites smashing into earth, have been found all around the globe but they have been found in the greatest density in geologically stable regions. This relatively greater abundance of securely identified craters in geologically stable regions must be explained by the lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions.

The conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) A meteorite that strikes exactly the same spot as an earlier meteorite will obliterate all traces of the earlier impact.
(B) Rates of destructive geophysical processes within any given region vary markedly throughout geological time.
(C) The rate at which the Earth is struck by meteorites has greatly increased in geologically recent times.
(D) Actual meteorite impacts have been scattered fairly evenly over the Earth's surface in the course of Earth's geological history.
(E) The Earth's geologically stable regions have been studied more intensively by geologists than have its less stable regions.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by sivaelectric » Mon May 30, 2011 6:03 am
My choice E
If I am wrong correct me :), If my post helped let me know by clicking the Thanks button ;).

Chitra Sivasankar Arunagiri
Join the discussion

by newton9 » Mon May 30, 2011 7:02 am
P: X have been found in greater density in geologically stable regions
C: More no of craters can be explained by lower rate of GP processes.

My paraphrase for assumption: X were not scattered highly in these geologically stable regions.

D) Actual meteorite impacts have been scattered fairly evenly over the Earth's surface in the course of Earth's geological history.

This is the required assumption. If we negate this, clearly argument dies.

Negation: meteorite impacts are not scattered evenly. So the argument is weakened, because lower destructive processes cannot explain this.
Join the discussion

by galaxian » Mon May 30, 2011 12:11 pm
IMO D.
Liked Newton9's explanation though I approached the problem by taking it as a Math problem more than CR.Only when we assume that Impacts are scattered fairly over Earth's surface, we can further talk about why some places (or read the Geologically Stable places) have few/more Impacts.
Join the discussion

by sivaelectric » Mon May 30, 2011 8:37 pm
Good explanation Newton9 :)
If I am wrong correct me :), If my post helped let me know by clicking the Thanks button ;).

Chitra Sivasankar Arunagiri
Join the discussion