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
Start free 5-day trial
Read 559 reviewsTarget Test Prep

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Is D wrong?

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Seoul, Korea
Thanked: 2 times
by kulksnikhil » Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:46 am
It has been a commonplace in medical literature that the ingestion of drug L,, in combination with the application of lotion M, causes appearance of adverse reaction O. Recently however doubts have been cast on the role of lotion M in the appearance of adverse reaction O.

Which one of following research findings could most reasonably have created the doubts referred to above?

A. The appearance of adverse reaction O following the ingestion of drug L and the application of lotion M

B. The absense of adverse reaction O following the ingestion of drug L and the application of lotion M

C. The ingestion of drug L and the appearance of adverse reaction O in the absense of lotion M

D. The absense of adverse reaction O following the ingestion of drug L without the application of lotion M

E. The disappearance of adverse reaction O following the ingestion of drug L and the application of lotion M
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:47 am
Thanked: 2 times

by rajs.kumar » Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:17 am
I would go for C.

Reasoning: L and M (ingestion of L and application of M) combine together to causes adverse effect O. If doubts came up on the role of M that basically means L does not need M to cause the effect O. This is captured in C.

On the other hand, the assence of effect O in D could be because L and M did not combine.

C. The ingestion of drug L and the appearance of adverse reaction O in the absense of lotion M

D. The absense of adverse reaction O following the ingestion of drug L without the application of lotion M
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Seoul, Korea
Thanked: 2 times

by kulksnikhil » Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:37 am
rajs.kumar wrote:I would go for C.

Reasoning: L and M (ingestion of L and application of M) combine together to causes adverse effect O. If doubts came up on the role of M that basically means L does not need M to cause the effect O. This is captured in C.

On the other hand, the assence of effect O in D could be because L and M did not combine.

C. The ingestion of drug L and the appearance of adverse reaction O in the absense of lotion M

D. The absense of adverse reaction O following the ingestion of drug L without the application of lotion M
oops I missed the part that.. 'the adverse effect is due to combination of the two'... thanks for that explanation, but...

the part that confused me (as u have captured in your post) is... the statement.. "recently doubts have been cast on the role played by lotion M".... doesn't "doubt" mean "suspecting" M of being the culprit ?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:47 am
Thanked: 2 times

by rajs.kumar » Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:34 pm
kulksnikhil wrote:
oops I missed the part that.. 'the adverse effect is due to combination of the two'... thanks for that explanation, but...

the part that confused me (as u have captured in your post) is... the statement.. "recently doubts have been cast on the role played by lotion M".... doesn't "doubt" mean "suspecting" M of being the culprit ?
recently doubts have been cast => changes or modifies role

Added to that "role of M for the appearance of O" earlier in the question stem it was stated L and M combined together to cause the effect O. Later doubts have raised meaning M may not be involved in the process. Did I explain it??
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Seoul, Korea
Thanked: 2 times

by kulksnikhil » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:03 am
rajs.kumar wrote:
kulksnikhil wrote:
oops I missed the part that.. 'the adverse effect is due to combination of the two'... thanks for that explanation, but...

the part that confused me (as u have captured in your post) is... the statement.. "recently doubts have been cast on the role played by lotion M".... doesn't "doubt" mean "suspecting" M of being the culprit ?
recently doubts have been cast => changes or modifies role

Added to that "role of M for the appearance of O" earlier in the question stem it was stated L and M combined together to cause the effect O. Later doubts have raised meaning M may not be involved in the process. Did I explain it??
Thanks for the explaination raj.. it is pretty clear... I will have to be careful next time... "doubt" would mean, deviation from expectation, whether it positive deviation or negative deviation.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 559
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:29 amFollowed by: 2 members
Thanked: 5 times

by Cybermusings » Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:12 am
I would go for Option C...Appearence of an adverse reaction O, after ingestion of the drug but the absence of the Lotion M...goes on to prove that Lotion M has nothing to do with the reaction...It might just happen because of ingestion of L
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:26 am

by khanshainur » Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:45 am
I also would go with option C.I think it is the most logical one.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1