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.

*Princeton Diagnostic* Help

Expert replies
by ankit0411 » Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:46 am
Some medical colleges have recently extended the duration of a medical education by adding a research project to the other tasks medical students must complete. These schools maintain that this alteration is a response to requests from the public for more thoroughly educated doctors, rather than an attempt to generate more income from tuition. Obviously, their claim is inaccurate. If it were true, medical schools would use the more modern patient-based learning format, which produces more thoroughly trained doctors than do research projects.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument against the medical colleges?

A)When medical colleges first started encouraging research projects, the projects were of longer duration than the projects suggested currently.


B)Medical colleges have said they will not eliminate the research project requirement unless they can find a way to compensate for the loss of revenue that would result from this elimination.


C)Many prospective medical students have expressed interest in courses using patient-based learning.


D)The public has no clear understanding of what is necessary to train a medical doctor thoroughly.


E)Research projects cannot be legitimately compared to course formats, either patient-based or otherwise.

Can anyone please explain the above problem ?

OA is B
Don't predict future , create it !
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by tisrar02 » Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:18 am
This questions requires us to weaken the argument laid out by the medical colleges that this course is a response by the public. Others believe that this new alteration of the extended program is a way to make more money. How do we weaken the medical schools arguments?

If the public tries to take away this new extended program and the colleges argue that they will need to figure out a new way to compensate for the revenue or money made from this new program, then this weakens the argument laid out by the medical colleges. This is because the colleges state they ONLY have the programs because the public felt it was needed. The new argument is that they will only remove the program if the college is properly compensated for the lost revenue. This logically weakens the arugument.

Hope this helps
Join the discussion

by ankit0411 » Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:46 am
tisrar02 wrote:This questions requires us to weaken the argument laid out by the medical colleges that this course is a response by the public. Others believe that this new alteration of the extended program is a way to make more money. How do we weaken the medical schools arguments?

If the public tries to take away this new extended program and the colleges argue that they will need to figure out a new way to compensate for the revenue or money made from this new program, then this weakens the argument laid out by the medical colleges. This is because the colleges state they ONLY have the programs because the public felt it was needed. The new argument is that they will only remove the program if the college is properly compensated for the lost revenue. This logically weakens the arugument.

Hope this helps

Thanks mate, sounds good :)
Don't predict future , create it !
Join the discussion

by vk_vinayak » Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:48 pm
ankit0411 wrote:Some medical colleges have recently extended the duration of a medical education by adding a research project to the other tasks medical students must complete. These schools maintain that this alteration is a response to requests from the public for more thoroughly educated doctors, rather than an attempt to generate more income from tuition. Obviously, their claim is inaccurate. If it were true, medical schools would use the more modern patient-based learning format, which produces more thoroughly trained doctors than do research projects.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument against the medical colleges?

A)When medical colleges first started encouraging research projects, the projects were of longer duration than the projects suggested currently.


B)Medical colleges have said they will not eliminate the research project requirement unless they can find a way to compensate for the loss of revenue that would result from this elimination.


C)Many prospective medical students have expressed interest in courses using patient-based learning.


D)The public has no clear understanding of what is necessary to train a medical doctor thoroughly.


E)Research projects cannot be legitimately compared to course formats, either patient-based or otherwise.

Can anyone please explain the above problem ?

OA is B
Argument by the school: We have extended the duration of study because we want to educate our students thoroughly and not because we want to generate more income from the additional tuition.

To weaken this argument we need to show that schools have indeed extended the duration of study for monetary cause. B says just that. If the schools were really interested in educating their students thoroughly, then schools should be open to any idea that helps their student. By attaching the clause of 'compensate the loss of revenue', schools are showing that they've extended the study duration only for the purpose of making more money.
- VK

I will (Learn. Recognize. Apply)
Join the discussion