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.

Kaplan CR problem

Expert replies
by moindanawala » Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:08 am
Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the National league required them to do so. These players were 20% less likely to suffer head injuries than other players. Obviously, hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?

A) Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players

B) Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances

C) Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks

D) Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues

E) Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by vk_vinayak » Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:33 am
moindanawala wrote:Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the National league required them to do so. These players were 20% less likely to suffer head injuries than other players. Obviously, hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?

A) Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players

B) Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances

C) Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks

D) Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues

E) Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries
Looks A to me. Argument says that wearing helmets made the players 20% less likely to get injured. Option A, introducing alternate cause, says that those players were very cautious to begin with.
- VK

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

by confuse mind » Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:40 am
moindanawala wrote:Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the National league required them to do so. These players were 20% less likely to suffer head injuries than other players. Obviously, hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?

A) Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players

B) Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances

C) Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks

D) Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues

E) Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries
I would go with C.

A, in my opinion, strengthens the conclusion that 'helmets are critical'
C weakens by saying that they cannot help in all cases, especially when they are made of composites.
Join the discussion

by ssidda01 » Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:54 am
IMO D.

Argument states that helmets are critical to prevent injuries. People who have had helmets in the past have 20% less injuries.

D states that people have worn helmets in the past and still have succumb to head injuries.
Join the discussion

by SmartAssJun » Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:59 pm
moindanawala wrote:Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the National league required them to do so. These players were 20% less likely to suffer head injuries than other players. Obviously, hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?

A) Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players

B) Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances

C) Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks

D) Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues

E) Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries
Totally A to me.
Choice A provide a perfect addition explanation of why hocky players with helmets on suffer less injuries during the games.
Other choices are way less relevant and C even strngthens the point.
Join the discussion

by SmartAssJun » Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:59 pm
moindanawala wrote:Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the National league required them to do so. These players were 20% less likely to suffer head injuries than other players. Obviously, hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?

A) Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players

B) Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances

C) Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks

D) Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues

E) Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries
Totally A to me.
Choice A provides a perfect addition explanation of why hocky players with helmets on suffer less injuries during the games.
Other choices are way less relevant and C even strngthens the point.
Join the discussion

by ice_rush » Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:01 am
A should be correct. What's the OA?
Join the discussion

by ananthrajavadhuta » Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:10 pm
Join the discussion

by kheba » Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:57 am
Why not C ?? Even if one is cautious there's nothing stopping the ball from hitting the helmet. The conclusion is helmets are critical in preventing head injuries , but what if the helmets themselves are not good enough?
Join the discussion