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
GMATBootcamp Starts Sep 28
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE BOOTCAMP

Live Online Bootcamp Class with Top GMAT Expert Chris Peckover

15 live classes from Sep 28, 2026

Schedule
Mon to Fri · 7:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
Live classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class
  • 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included
View bootcamp & 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.

MGMAT Mimic the Reasoning Question

Expert replies
by pscher31 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:14 am
What's the best way to attack this problem and "mimic the reasoning" problems in general?



If, in a tennis tournament, a match reaches a fifth-set tiebreak, the lower-ranked player always loses the tiebreak (and, therefore, the match). If Rafael, the second-ranked player, wins a tournament by beating Roger, the top-ranked player, then the match must not have included a fifth-set tiebreak.

Which of the following arguments most closely mimics the reasoning used in the above argument?


A. If a woman with a family history of twins gets pregnant three times, she will have one set of twins. Jennifer, who falls into this category, had two sets of twins, so she must not have gotten pregnant exactly three times.

B. If a salesman sells more product than anyone else in a calendar year, then he will earn an all-expenses-paid vacation. Joe earned an all-expense-paid vacation, so he must have sold more product than anyone else for the year.

C. A newspaper can charge a 50% premium for ads if its circulation surpasses 100,000; if the circulation does not pass 100,000, therefore, the newspaper can't charge any kind of premium for ads.

D. If a student is in the top 10% of her class, she will earn a college scholarship. Anna is not in the top 10% of her class, so she will not earn a scholarship.

E. All of the players on a football team receive a cash bonus if the team wins the Super Bowl. If quarterback Tom Brady earned a cash bonus last year, he must have been a member of the winning Super Bowl team.

OA A
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by luckypiscian » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:37 am
Original sentence structure
condition-1 -> result-1. If result-2 then condition-1 should not have happened

A) condition-1 -> result-1. If result-2 then condition-1 should not have happened
B) condition-1 -> result-1. If result-1 happened then condition-1 should have happened
C) condition-1 -> result-1. If condition-1 does not happen result-1 cant happen
D) condition-1 -> result-1. condition-1 is not met hence result-1 will not happen
E) result-1 <- condition-1. If result-1 happened then condition-1 should have happened
Join the discussion

by kbmanikandan » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:36 pm
luckypiscian wrote:Original sentence structure
condition-1 -> result-1. If result-2 then condition-1 should not have happened

A) condition-1 -> result-1. If result-2 then condition-1 should not have happened
B) condition-1 -> result-1. If result-1 happened then condition-1 should have happened
C) condition-1 -> result-1. If condition-1 does not happen result-1 cant happen
D) condition-1 -> result-1. condition-1 is not met hence result-1 will not happen
E) result-1 <- condition-1. If result-1 happened then condition-1 should have happened

i liked the logic. But, all options except B and E seems to use the asssumptions based on the condition. If condition is satisfied some event results, if the result doesnt occur then the condition is not true, which need not be always true. Doesnt this take up a conclusion specific to reader?
Join the discussion