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
GMATBootcamp Starts Sep 21
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE BOOTCAMP

Live Online Bootcamp Class with Top GMAT Expert Chris Peckover

Sep 21 to Oct 9, 2026

Schedule
Mon to Fri · 7:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
Live classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class
  • 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included
View bootcamp & 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.

MGMAT RC - East Germany

Expert replies
by hk_4u » Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:45 am
The fall of the Berlin Wall represented a political victory of the free market against a centrally planned economy. Though highly interventionist and dependent on international defense and industrial subsidy, West Germany was a model of economic expansion in the post-war era. East Germany, while relatively successful in comparison with other Eastern Bloc nations, was far behind West Germany with regard to the buying power of its people. It was hard to avoid obvious comparisons such as the fact that 1 in 4 East Germans did not even have an indoor toilet. Western German authorities were therefore committed to rapid integration of the two Germanys without resorting to massive controls on internal migration, external capital controls, or continuation of a large state-owned industrial sector.
Other nations were already wary of a united Germany. France, a perpetual competitor, saw Germany's size advantage increase overnight. In Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") alone, an historical size advantage of 23% jumped to nearly 30%, with stronger growth promised when East Germany was fully integrated.
Within Germany, there should have been no doubt that integration would be costly. The question was whether the government was up to the task. In Italy, for example, the central government has invested tremendous resources in promoting the economy of its under-performing Southern region. In contrast, in the United States, the local population bears the burden of varying economic performance. For example, the American South is allowed to exist with much higher rates of poverty and lower education than the rest of the nation.
Rather than allow East Germany to fall into total disrepair, with millions fleeing to the West and a long-term negative impact on national GDP growth, West German authorities decided to try to spend their way out of the crisis, creating almost overnight an infrastructure in East Germany to provide a standard of living comparable to that in West Germany. The goal was to take an under-performing country and raise it to "first world" standards in only a few years. This goal would have been preposterous had not West Germany possessed the resources to accomplish the task.
Join the discussion
Source: — Reading Comprehension |

by hk_4u » Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:47 am
The passage suggests which of the following about the relationship between West Germany and France?

Historically, the economy of West Germany had been more stable than that of France.

The Gross Domestic Product of West Germany had always been greater than that of France.

The size of West Germany's population gave it an advantage over France in international trade.

France did not view its economic position relative to West Germany as immutable.

West Germany planned to use reunification to bolster its economic advantage over France.

OA - D

Isn't B not true as per the passage too. Passage says
In Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") alone, an historical size advantage of 23% jumped to nearly 30%, with stronger growth promised when East Germany was fully integrated.
West Germany had a historical size advantage - Can we not safely say that GDP of West Germany had always been greater than that of France
Join the discussion

by Stacey Koprince » Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:02 pm
Passage summary:

P1. fall of BW = free mkt victory over "CPE." WG had some drawbacks but also some good points. EG was ahead of other similar nations but behind WG. Wanted to integrate the two quickly.
P2. Other nations wary. France - now G even bigger than F.
P3. integration = costly. Italy = lots of $ invested in under-perf. region. US, though, doesn't try to equalize as much.
P4. WG decides to spend $; jump-start EG economy.
West Germany had a historical size advantage - Can we not safely say that GDP of West Germany had always been greater than that of France
No, we can't. The problem here is the word "always." The "historical size advantage" simply means: coming into the time period in question, WG had a size advantage for some unknown period of time prior. That does not mean that WG ALWAYS had that advantage since the beginning of time (or, at least, since the beginning of France and WG!).
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me
Join the discussion

by oex85 » Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:17 pm
Stacey Koprince wrote:Passage summary:

P1. fall of BW = free mkt victory over "CPE." WG had some drawbacks but also some good points. EG was ahead of other similar nations but behind WG. Wanted to integrate the two quickly.
P2. Other nations wary. France - now G even bigger than F.
P3. integration = costly. Italy = lots of $ invested in under-perf. region. US, though, doesn't try to equalize as much.
P4. WG decides to spend $; jump-start EG economy.
West Germany had a historical size advantage - Can we not safely say that GDP of West Germany had always been greater than that of France
No, we can't. The problem here is the word "always." The "historical size advantage" simply means: coming into the time period in question, WG had a size advantage for some unknown period of time prior. That does not mean that WG ALWAYS had that advantage since the beginning of time (or, at least, since the beginning of France and WG!).

I understand that perhaps B isn't correct, because of the wording. However, I can't see why D is correct. Where is it implied that the frogs don't view their economic position relative to WG as immutable?
Join the discussion