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.

Investigators in Greenavale

Expert replies
by rahulvsd » Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:13 am
The proposal to hire twelve new fraud investigators in Greenvale is foolish. This is because there is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new investigators, but not to pay the salaries of additional prosecutors and administrative assistants to process the increased load of fraud cases that new investigators usually generate.

Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

A. Studies have shown that an increase in the number of a town's fraud investigators does not necessarily reduce fraud.
B. When one neighboring town increased the number of fraud investigators by 20 percent last year, it resulted in 30 percent more charges of fraud and 25 percent more convictions.
C. If funding for the new investigators' salaries is approved, support for other town services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.
D. In most United States towns, not all fraud cases result in charges, and not all charges result in trials.
E. Greenvale's ratio of fraud investigators to local officials has reached a level at which an increase in the number of investigators will have a deterrent effect on fraud.

[spoiler]OA: E. Source: Knewton. [/spoiler]
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by sam2304 » Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:31 am
This is a modified version of OG 10 question. Check this link

https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-proposal- ... 69915.html

Greenvale plans to hire new investigators to decrease the fraud cases.
But no sufficient pay to for additional prosecutors and administrative assistants

The plan is foolish

We are asked to weaken the conclusion. We need to provide information that the plan will help reduce fraud cases

A - Strengthener
B - Irrelevant as same cannot be applied here
C - Irrelevant
D - Irrelevant
E - Weakens - If there is deterrent effect on fraud cases then it reduces the no of cases in the first step itself and there is no need to employ additional prosecutors/assistants

IMO E.
Getting defeated is just a temporary notion, giving it up is what makes it permanent.
https://gmatandbeyond.blogspot.in/
Join the discussion

by Birottam Dutta » Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:36 am
The proposal to hire twelve new fraud investigators in Greenvale is foolish. This is because there is sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new investigators, but not to pay the salaries of additional prosecutors and administrative assistants to process the increased load of fraud cases that new investigators usually generate.

Which of the following, if true, will most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

A. Studies have shown that an increase in the number of a town's fraud investigators does not necessarily reduce fraud.
B. When one neighboring town increased the number of fraud investigators by 20 percent last year, it resulted in 30 percent more charges of fraud and 25 percent more convictions.
C. If funding for the new investigators' salaries is approved, support for other town services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year.
D. In most United States towns, not all fraud cases result in charges, and not all charges result in trials.
E. Greenvale's ratio of fraud investigators to local officials has reached a level at which an increase in the number of investigators will have a deterrent effect on fraud.

A is beyond the scope of this argument
B is irrelevant
C is irrelevant
D is irrelevent
E is correct as it says that increasing the ratio of fraud investigators will have a deterrent effect on fraud. So this will not require a aubsequent increase in number of prosecutors and assistants.

Hence, E!
Join the discussion