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.

Judgements

Expert replies
by nadib002 » Wed May 19, 2010 9:33 pm
Candidate: I am concerned that few judges who arbitrate cases involving high-tech companies have any relevant background; indeed, not one federal judge has a degree or any experience in computer technology. Until our judges are better able to demonstrate an understanding of the technology involved in these cases, we should view any decisions they pass down with skepticism.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the candidate's argument?

(A) Litigation and jurisprudence in this area concerns the moral and social value of scientific and technological developments, judgments which do not intrinsically require a sophisticated technical understanding of the material.

(B) Computer scientists, by and large, have little interest in politics and public policy. It would be difficult to find scientists with the degree of commitment required for a serious contribution to the judicial system.

(C) There is a lack of people who are qualified in both technical and legal areas of expertise.

(D) There is very little opportunity, and indeed little need, for technical experts in the judicial branch. There is therefore almost no way for a technical specialist to rise through the ranks to a top-level position in government.

(E) The rewards of a life as a judge, in terms of both money and prestige, are not high enough to attract top-flight technical experts to this area.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by paddle_sweep » Wed May 19, 2010 9:41 pm
nadib002 wrote:Candidate: I am concerned that few judges who arbitrate cases involving high-tech companies have any relevant background; indeed, not one federal judge has a degree or any experience in computer technology. Until our judges are better able to demonstrate an understanding of the technology involved in these cases, we should view any decisions they pass down with skepticism.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the candidate's argument?

(A) Litigation and jurisprudence in this area concerns the moral and social value of scientific and technological developments, judgments which do not intrinsically require a sophisticated technical understanding of the material.

(B) Computer scientists, by and large, have little interest in politics and public policy. It would be difficult to find scientists with the degree of commitment required for a serious contribution to the judicial system.

(C) There is a lack of people who are qualified in both technical and legal areas of expertise.

(D) There is very little opportunity, and indeed little need, for technical experts in the judicial branch. There is therefore almost no way for a technical specialist to rise through the ranks to a top-level position in government.

(E) The rewards of a life as a judge, in terms of both money and prestige, are not high enough to attract top-flight technical experts to this area.
IMO it's A. Pls post OA.
Join the discussion

by ballubalraj » Thu May 20, 2010 12:59 am
Argument: The juduges handling cases related high-tech companies do not have technical knowledge, which they should have (conclusion says that).
Conclusion: Until judges know the technology involved in these cases, the decisions should be veiwed as skeptical.

We need to find out the reason which will weaken the argument, i.e., find out a reason which tells that technical knowledge is not required for the judges handling these cases.

A. Frankly, I did not understand this option completely but inferred that this option gives some reasoning as why technical knowledge is NOT required for judges handling cases ralated to high-tech companies. Seems OK.

B. States the reasons probably why it is difficult to find judges with technical knowledge, but does not give any clue why judges do not require tech knowledge.
C. Similar to B, states the reason for not finding judges with technical knowledge.
D. Mentions the opportunities constraints as why a technical person can not become a judge.
E. Mentions the reason why technical expers would not want to become a judge.

Clearly, option A stands out from the remaining options. The other options (B thru E) are just talking about the reasons for non-availability of judges with technical backgroud. Only option A provides reason why the judges do not need to be have technical background.
Join the discussion

by indiantiger » Thu May 20, 2010 3:16 pm
First step find the conclusion: view any decisions they pass down with skepticism.

(A) Litigation and jurisprudence in this area concerns the moral and social value of scientific and technological developments, judgments which do not intrinsically require a sophisticated technical understanding of the material.

(B) Computer scientists, by and large, have little interest in politics and public policy. It would be difficult to find scientists with the degree of commitment required for a serious contribution to the judicial system. [ technology is not limited to comp science, too narrow and faulty logic]

(C) There is a lack of people who are qualified in both technical and legal areas of expertise. [ the judges need understanding]

(D) There is very little opportunity, and indeed little need, for technical experts in the judicial branch. There is therefore almost no way for a technical specialist to rise through the ranks to a top-level position in government. [ no direct correlation]

(E) The rewards of a life as a judge, in terms of both money and prestige, are not high enough to attract top-flight technical experts to this area.[ assumption that everyone works for money and prestige]
Join the discussion

by nadib002 » Thu May 20, 2010 8:03 pm
THE OA is "A"

Thank you all
Join the discussion