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
GMATLiveTeach Starts Oct 17
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Chris Peckover, 100th-Percentile GMAT Scorer

Oct 17 · Chris Peckover
Sat · 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM ET
Oct 20 · Chris Peckover
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Oct 25 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 1:00 to 4:00 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemand 5 seats left Start anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
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 Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget 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.

Official Question Doubt

Expert replies
by tanvis1120 » Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:02 am
Hi,

In the attached problem, why can't we assume if 1 is a number in the set, then x-3 = 1; x = 4?
Hence the set can be {4, 1, -2, -5, -8...}. Shouldn't there be an option with I and III.
I know,assuming x=1 is the first thing anyone would do. But the former assumption confused me.

Answer Options:
a. I only b. II only c. II only d. I and II only e. II and III only

OA is C
Attachments
Untitled.png
Join the discussion
Source: — Problem Solving |

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:06 am
For a certain set of numbers, if x is in the set, then x-3 is also in the set. If the number 1 is in the set, which of the following must also be in the set.
I. 4
II. -1
III.-5

A. I only
B. II only
C. III only
D. I and II only
E. II and III only

In the attached problem, why can't we assume if 1 is a number in the set, then x-3 = 1; x = 4?
You have reversed the order of the if-then statement. It's not uncommon for people to do this.

The if-then statement here is "If if x is in the set, then x-3 is also in the set"
Reversing the statement (to get "if x-3 is in the set, then x is also in the set") is not logically sound.

Here's an example why.

Let's say: If an animal is a rabbit, then that animal has ears.
Can we then conclude that if an animal has ears then that animal is a rabbit? No.

So, in our question, the existence of x in the set guarantees the existence of x-3 in the set.
However, it is not necessarily the case that the existence of x-3 in the set guarantees the existence of x in the set.


I hope that helps.

Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Image
Join the discussion

by ceilidh.erickson » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:32 am
Another analogy might look like this:

Sarah is shy, so if she goes to a party, her sister has to come, too.
So we know that if Sarah goes, then her sister will go.

Does it have to follow that if her sister goes, Sarah will go? Not necessarily. Maybe her sister isn't shy and doesn't mind going by herself.

Only if the statement said "if either sister goes, then the other one will go, too" should we assume both.

Likewise in this question, only if it says "if x is in the set, x-3 is in the set and vice versa" would we assume that 4 has to be in the set. Maybe 1 was the starting point (like a cascading/domino effect), and the set is only infinite in one direction.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Join the discussion

by [email protected] » Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:30 pm
Hi tanvis1120,

The question that you posted emphasizes a concept called "formal logic". It's an idea that's common on the LSAT but appears only in rare circumstances on the GMAT. Chances are good that you won't see it at all when you take the Official GMAT, so you shouldn't worry too much about it.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image
Join the discussion