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.

MGMAT test CR question

Expert replies
by shreeman » Sat Oct 30, 2010 5:51 am
Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the league have become concerned with the number of flagrant fouls occurring during league games. This past season, the number of flagrant fouls was double the number from the season before. League officials plan to reduce the number of such fouls during the coming season by implementing mandatory suspensions for players who commit flagrant fouls.

Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the officials' plan will be effective?

1. Most serious injuries occurring during league games are a direct result of flagrant fouls.
2.League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls.
3 Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls.
4 A similar league suspends players for committing flagrant fouls; this league has a relatively low incidence of flagrant fouls when compared with the Youth Hockey League.
5 Most players in the league strive to be selected for the All-Star team, and league rules state that no player with a record of suspension shall be selected for the All-Star team.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by shovan85 » Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:01 am
According to the passage Suspension will be imposed on the players. In order to make the plan effective we need to find out an option which says "the player has the fear of getting suspended and so he will not play flagrant foul game".

1. Just an info, does not help the plan.
2. The fouls will be reported but it will not help decreasing the fouls.
3 Parents support this, but they are not playing. End of the day it depends on the player.
4 This is an info that states the outcome of such rules.
5 Left after POE. Players will have a fear of getting suspended.

IMO 5
If the problem is Easy Respect it, if the problem is tough Attack it
Join the discussion

by shreeman » Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:20 am
flagrant foul ==> suspended -> it means a player will not play (he may be suspended from few games or whatever) --> this itself will deter player from committing flagrant foul. Isn't the punishment of getting suspended not enough to deter a player from commiting foul??

now taking option B. <League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls> if refrees are not trained to recognize the foul then a player will not be suspended so this is the most important thing for the success of the plan (you can say this is the assumption of the argument)

but how E is correct? if a refrees doesn't recognize that a player has committed foul then he won't be suspended and he will be selected for the All star team. So the success of the plan depends only on the fact that players are recognized of flagrant foul. once they are recognized they will be suspended and this will deter them from committing foul.

please correct my thought process.

but anyway OA is E.
Join the discussion

by shovan85 » Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:34 am
shreeman wrote:flagrant foul ==> suspended -> it means a player will not play (he may be suspended from few games or whatever) --> this itself will deter player from committing flagrant foul. Isn't the punishment of getting suspended not enough to deter a player from commiting foul??

now taking option B. <League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls> if refrees are not trained to recognize the foul then a player will not be suspended so this is the most important thing for the success of the plan (you can say this is the assumption of the argument)

but how E is correct? if a refrees doesn't recognize that a player has committed foul then he won't be suspended and he will be selected for the All star team. So the success of the plan depends only on the fact that players are recognized of flagrant foul. once they are recognized they will be suspended and this will deter them from committing foul.

please correct my thought process.

but anyway OA is E.
OK!!! let me raise questions against B without concerning E and you try questioning against E without referring B (means you cannot drag those trained untrained referees while stating your thoughts against E )?

My question against B: If referees point out proper fouls then how do you know players will be suspended from the game? May be the guy who is playing flagrant is son of the coach of the team? If the referee has a grudge on some specific player then.. I can raise so many questions without mentioning any concerns about E.

Try to do the same against E. Then you can visualize and will clear the thought process.

PS: I think you are overlapping the concepts from different differnt option. Do it like Data sufficiency. When at an option only that option and premises :)
If the problem is Easy Respect it, if the problem is tough Attack it
Join the discussion