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.

Lyme Diseas

Expert replies
by lukaswelker » Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:33 am
Hey Guys, not the quietest question by far...

Lyme disease is caused by a bacterium transmitted to humans by deer ticks. Generally, deer ticks pick up the bacterium while in the larval stage by feeding on infected white-footed mice. However, certain other species on which the larvae feed do not harbor the bacterium. If the population of these other species were increased, more of the larvae would be feeding on uninfected hosts, so the number of ticks acquiring the bacterium would likely decline.

Which of the following would it be most important to ascertain in evaluating the argument?
"¢whether populations of other species on which deer tick larvae feed are found only in areas also inhabited by white-footed mice.
"¢whether the size of the deer tick population is currently limited by the availability of animal for the ticks' larval stage to feed on.
"¢whether the infected deer tick populations could be controlled by increasing the number of animals that prey on white-footed mice.
"¢whether deer ticks that were not infected as larvae can become infected as adults by feeding on deer on which infected deer ticks have fed
"¢whether the other species on which deer tick larvae feed harbor any other bacteria that sticks transmit to humans

I can easily discard options; 1,3 and 4. But I don't see why argument 2 is stronger than 5. Any advice?

Many thanks
Lukas
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by ceilidh.erickson » Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:54 am
With CR questions, pay particular attention to any arguments that involve the conflation of NUMBERS and PROPORTIONS.

Premises:
- deer ticks pick up the bacterium while in the larval stage by feeding on infected white-footed mice
- certain other species on which the larvae feed do not harbor the bacterium

Conclusion:
- If the population of these other species were increased, more of the larvae would be feeding on uninfected hosts, so the number of ticks acquiring the bacterium would likely decline.

Logical Gap:
- We're assuming that if the NUMBER of other food-species increased, then the PROPORTION of infested food supply would decrease, and thus the NUMBER of infected ticks would decrease. But what if increasing the food supply merely increased the total population of ticks? We might have the same number of infested ticks, even if the proportion of the tick population was smaller.

We need to evaluate: will the overall size of the tick population change?

A. These populations don't need to be found ONLY in areas inhabited by white-footed mice. They just need to share some area, so the ticks could potentially feed on both.

B. Whether the tick population is currently limited by food supply will directly affect whether the overall population will change. Correct!

C. This is outside of the scope of the argument. The cause-effect relationship we care about is: increasing non-white-footed-mouse food -> smaller number of infected ticks.

D. The chronology of infection is irrelevant.

E. This argument only deals with Lyme disease bacterium. "Any other bacteria" is outside of the scope of the argument.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Join the discussion

by ceilidh.erickson » Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:57 am
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Join the discussion

by BTGmoderatorAT » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:45 am
I believed it is letter B

Deer tick larvae is not part of the argument that's why B is reliable than E. Is my statement correct?
Join the discussion