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
Start free 5-day trial
Read 559 reviewsTarget Test Prep

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

New Cars

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 8:01 am
Thanked: 4 times
by italian7745 » Sat Aug 15, 2009 6:02 am
Over the last 25 years, the average price paid for a new car has steadily increased in relation to average individual income. This increase indicates that individuals who buy new cars today spend, on average, a larger amount relative to their incomes buying a car than their counterparts did 25 years ago.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

(A) There has been a significant increase over the last 25 years in the proportion of individuals in households with more than one wage earner.

(B) The number of used cars sold annually is the same as it was 25 years ago.

(C) Allowing for inflation, average individual income has significantly declined over the last 25 years.

(D) During the last 25 years, annual new-car sales and population have both increased, but new-car sales have increased by a greater percentage.

(E) Sales to individuals make up a smaller proportion of all new-car sales they did 25 years ago.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:41 pm
Thanked: 3 times

Re: New Cars

by ankit1383 » Sat Aug 15, 2009 6:21 am
italian7745 wrote: (A) There has been a significant increase over the last 25 years in the proportion of individuals in households with more than one wage earner.

Question talks about average individual income.So this hardly matters

(B) The number of used cars sold annually is the same as it was 25 years ago.Out of Scope

(C) Allowing for inflation, average individual income has significantly declined over the last 25 years.This strengthen the argument
(D) During the last 25 years, annual new-car sales and population have both increased, but new-car sales have increased by a greater percentage.Out of scope

(E) Sales to individuals make up a smaller proportion of all new-car sales they did 25 years ago. This is correct
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:59 amFollowed by: 1 member
Location: USA
Thanked: 13 times

by niraj_a » Sat Aug 15, 2009 6:42 am
i got E too by POE, i don't agree with its logic though.

E is saying that more individuals bought new cars 25 years ago than today. this doesn't directly indicate how much people spent relative to their income 25 years ago vs. today.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 8:01 am
Thanked: 4 times

by italian7745 » Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:01 am
OA is E..Can anyone explain y??
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 177
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:06 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 2 times

Re: New Cars

by perfectstranger » Sun Aug 16, 2009 7:46 am
italian7745 wrote:Over the last 25 years, the average price paid for a new car has steadily increased in relation to average individual income. This increase indicates that individuals who buy new cars today spend, on average, a larger amount relative to their incomes buying a car than their counterparts did 25 years ago.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

(A) There has been a significant increase over the last 25 years in the proportion of individuals in households with more than one wage earner.

(B) The number of used cars sold annually is the same as it was 25 years ago.

(C) Allowing for inflation, average individual income has significantly declined over the last 25 years.

(D) During the last 25 years, annual new-car sales and population have both increased, but new-car sales have increased by a greater percentage.

(E) Sales to individuals make up a smaller proportion of all new-car sales they did 25 years ago.
a larger amount relative to their incomes buying a car than their counterparts did 25 years ago.

what's the relation between avarage income and proportion of income spent for a car . I really confused
Please do not post answers visibly . Please hide them or post them later after the discussion.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:28 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by arorag » Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:02 am
Any expert for E's explanation..... I am confused..
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:41 am
Thanked: 8 times

Does this explain?

by enniguy » Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:35 am
If there is another reason for the prices to go up, such as organizations, corporate companies buying expensive cars, then avg price paid for new cars go up while the individuals are still buying lower end model cars (Paying low amounts) then the individuals are not spending a greater portion of their income on funding their cars. Note that, the avg will go up if there are a significant high end cars bought over as explained in option E.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:50 am

by delhiboy1979 » Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:51 am
I am lost wit this . THe argument says that individuals are spending a greater proportion of their income. We are looking for an option that weakens this.

I have no idea how E is weakening this arguement namely that individuals are spending a greater proportion of their incomes on buying cars.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:41 am
Thanked: 8 times

Okie

by enniguy » Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:11 am
delhiboy1979 wrote:I am lost wit this . THe argument says that individuals are spending a greater proportion of their income. We are looking for an option that weakens this.

I have no idea how E is weakening this arguement namely that individuals are spending a greater proportion of their incomes on buying cars.
Differentiate between Individuals and corporates. Consider Corporates buy expensive cars and individuals buy cheap cars then if you calculate the average, "the average price paid for a new car" will go up.

e.g: 3 individuals buy Rs.300 cars. Total=900.
Average price paid per new car is now Rs.300.

Then,
1 Corporate buys a car worth Rs.3100.

Now the total amt spent on new cars = Rs.4000.
Average price paid per new car is now Rs.1000. (4000/4).

You can read my previous explanation now.

Hope it helps.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:02 pmFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 5 times

by turbo jet » Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:30 am
Conclusion indicates that there is a direct relationship between car prices and individual incomes.

Option E states that there is no relation between individuals and car prices as individuals do not comprise majority car buyers
Thus Option E understates the conclusion and thereby weakens the argument.

Tip: In weakening question, identify the conclusion in the argument and find the option that understates the conclusion.

Cheers
Tj
Life is Tom; I am Jerry ;)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:20 am

by Eric77Gorm » Mon May 16, 2016 12:14 am
Well I feel E is the answer.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1