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.

Political Advertisement

Expert replies
by rx_11 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:33 am
Political Advertisement:

Mayor Delmont's critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont's leadership. Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than were eliminated, but the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office. So there can be no question that throughout Delmont's tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument in the advertisement?

A. The average pay for jobs created in the city during the past three years was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmont's tenure.
B. Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
C. Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
D. The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.
E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.


OA is D
Stucked at [spoiler]B & D[/spoiler].. I feel both of them are correct. Any experts plz explain why B is wrong?
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by beat_gmat_09 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:57 am
One POE from me -
Conclusion - average ... getting steadily bigger.
B - Average was at ten-year low when Delmont took office, does not strengthen.
D - The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.
Editing - D, shows the increase was steady, B does not mention anything about rise/steady rise.
Hope is the dream of a man awake
Join the discussion

by rishab1988 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:46 am
The premise clearly states that the average pay of jobs created was higher than average.If we somehow know that the average pay of jobs eliminated is not below average,then we can conclude that the average pay rose.
Join the discussion

by BellTheGMAT » Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:07 am
rx_11 wrote: B. Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.

D. The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.
Stucked at [spoiler]B & D[/spoiler].. I feel both of them are correct. Any experts plz explain why B is wrong?
Hi rx,

Premise - Avg pay of new jobs higher
Conclusion - Total avg pay of city is increasing

Total avg pay = Avg pay of new jobs + avg pay of existing jobs - avg pay of eliminated job
For Total avg pay to increase, and Avg pay of new jobs is already increasing ==> we can play around with other two variables and assume/ strenghthen/ weaken...
The reason I feel B is wrong - It talks only about the avg pay, how it moved relative to other years. But no reference given to the jobs that got eliminated.
Join the discussion