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.

Plastic sleds

Expert replies
by El Cucu » Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:21 am
In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.

Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited?

A. A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.
B. Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.
C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.
D. Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled.
E. Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by krisraam » Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:08 pm
IMO A.
Join the discussion

by anjaligeorge1 » Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:36 pm
What's the OA
Join the discussion

by Alara533 » Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:24 pm
IMO A.

Since a few children still use traditional wooden sleds, we can't blame on the plastic sleds for the increased injuries.
Join the discussion

by raunekk » Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:16 am
imo:B


We need an alternate reason to weaken the argument..


B says..

Not wearing protective gears is the reason...


Do keep an eye on the key words here...

most, a few



Tats the reason A cant be the anser.

thanks.
Join the discussion

by Alara533 » Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:25 am
raunekk wrote:imo:B


We need an alternate reason to weaken the argument..


B says..

Not wearing protective gears is the reason...


Do keep an eye on the key words here...

most, a few



Tats the reason A cant be the anser.

thanks.
We can't blame it on the protective gears because, we dont know whether kids used these gears 10 years ago! B says in general that kids are not wearing protective gears....but it doesn't say whether kids stopped using it right now!
Join the discussion

by raunekk » Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:09 am
B says in general that kids are not wearing protective gears....but it doesn't say whether kids stopped using it right now!




xactly... if they would have stopped it right now then definately wooden sleds would have been the reason for injuries... but that is not the case...
Join the discussion

by El Cucu » Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:04 am
anjaligeorge1 wrote:What's the OA
OA is B
Join the discussion

by thestrongest » Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:12 am
IMO C.

C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.

Clearly, platics sleds seem to be more dangerous because that they can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions.

Pls check OA again.
Join the discussion

by hardik.jadeja » Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:02 pm
Its a confusing one.

To get B we have to assume that in last 10 years children have stopped wearing protective gear and it was not the case 10 years back.

To get C we have to assume that people used plastic sleds more compare wooden sleds since plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions.

But I think I'd go with C.

If 100 people used wooden sleds and 10 got injured, on the other hand if 1000 people used plastic sleds and 20 got injured. Though the number of injured is more for plastic sleds, we still have to say plastic sleds are safer.
Join the discussion

by rawatgaurav81 » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:21 am
The answer would be B since its the only choice among the options which contradicts author's assumption that plastic sleds are more dangerous.Here the fault has been totally shifted on children not wearing protective gears.Though its not the correct assumption but its the best of the lot.
Join the discussion


by sumitkhurana » Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:15 am
Why not D ?

Since most of the injuries occur because of collisions with trees, it would not really matter as to which sleds are better !!

And the reason for the increase in accidents in something else, not dangerous plastic sleds.
Join the discussion

by NethraN » Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:35 am
I think D will support the conclusion and not refute it because the para clearly states this "harder to steer and slow." about plastic sleds, this indicates that the collisions could have been avoided if steering plastic sleds were easier.

I was not convinced by the justification given for the right answer, which they claim to be C.
Nethra
Join the discussion

by gabriel16 » Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:05 am
It seems to me that C is definitely the best choice. The question asks which “most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited.” The passage cites that plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds. The evidence used to back up this claim is that the number of children injured while sledding is much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.

This claim would seemingly have validity if the number of injuries went up but the total number of children and ultimately the time spent sledding stayed the same. However, choice C tells us that plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions, hence the over time spent sledding increases which would increase the number of injuries. Think of this question in terms of percentages as opposed to overall numbers.
Join the discussion