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.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE AWARDS 2026

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

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.

OG 13 Ques 115- Carpentry work in 2 different eras

Expert replies
by pareekbharat86 » Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:43 pm
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer's argument?
(A) The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
(C) The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.

The OA is D. The explanation in the OG makes no sense to me. None of the options fit best for me in this case.

Please advise. Thanks!
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by theCodeToGMAT » Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:56 pm
Answer is indeed [spoiler]{D}[/spoiler]

The reason : Suppose before 1930 there were 1000 Hotels and out of which 990 were demolished/disused.. So, only 10 are in use..
Now, author is trying to draw a conclusion on basis of 10 Hotels, neglecting 990 others....

So, "Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently" is weakened
R A H U L
Join the discussion

by pareekbharat86 » Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:59 pm
theCodeToGMAT wrote:Answer is indeed [spoiler]{D}[/spoiler]

The reason : Suppose before 1930 there were 1000 Hotels and out of which 990 were demolished/disused.. So, only 10 are in use..
Now, author is trying to draw a conclusion on basis of 10 Hotels, neglecting 990 others....

So, "Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently" is weakened
This was indeed helpful. Thanks!
Join the discussion

by theCodeToGMAT » Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:01 pm
pareekbharat86 wrote: This was indeed helpful. Thanks!
You are welcome!
R A H U L
Join the discussion

by ceilidh.erickson » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:11 pm
Rahul's explanation is spot-on. To make a more generalized point, though... there are two very common assumption types happening here.

1. CHANGES OVER TIME. Pay attention whenever a CR argument is talking about two different time periods. One major assumption is always that the two time periods are comparable. Consider:

A much higher percentage of New York City's population speaks Spanish today than they did in 1900. Thus, New Yorkers must be placing more emphasis on multilingual education now than they did in 1900.

Clearly, this argument is making the flawed assumption that the demographics of the city are largely the same, without considering that many more Spanish-speakers have moved to NYC in the last century. Populations/demographics change over time, so be sure to consider that in any time-related argument.

2. PART REPRESENTING THE WHOLE. In this argument, there's clearly a gap between "hotels from the 1930s that still exist" vs. "all hotels built in the 1900s." In a CR argument, you have to consider whether the sample given is representative of the whole. Consider:

The 16 yr olds at the Youth Leadership Conference are all high-achieving and motivated students. The work ethic of their generation must be exceptionally high.

Are these 16 yr olds really indicative of their entire generation? Or might the Youth Leadership Conference be a non-representative sample?
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Join the discussion