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.

red cars

Expert replies
by ranell » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:38 am
Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often higher for red cars than for cars of other colors. To justify these higher charges, insurance companies claim that, overall, a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents than are cars of any other color. If this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be saved
by banning red cars from the roads altogether.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) accepts without question that insurance companies have the right to charge higher premiums for higher-risk clients
(B) fails to consider whether red cars cost the same to repair as cars of other colors
(C) ignores the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars
(D) does not specify precisely what percentage of red cars are involved in accidents
(E) makes an unsupported assumption that every automobile accident results in some loss of life
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by ranell » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:41 am
The OA is C although I cannot understand the reason for it... If there is the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars, that meants that banning red cars from the roads will save human lives...
Please explain me
Join the discussion

by ranell » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:42 am
The OA is C although I cannot understand the reason for it...
If there is the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars, it means that banning red cars from the roads will save human lives...
Please explain
Join the discussion

by siddharth rastogi » Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:37 pm
The OA is C although I cannot understand the reason for it... If there is the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars, that meants that banning red cars from the roads will save human lives...
Please explain me

RANEL, HERE POINT TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT IF RED CARS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCSIDENTS BUT DRIVERS ARE RESPONSIBLE, THAN IF RED CARS ARE BANNED THE ACCIDENT RATES WILL NOT DEACREASE AS THOSE DRIVERS WHO DRIVE RECKLESSLY WOULD NOW DRIVE CARS WITH OTHER COLORS BUT STILL MEET WITH ACCIDENTS DUE TO THEIR BAD DRIVING.
Join the discussion

by enniguy » Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:00 pm
ranell wrote:The OA is C although I cannot understand the reason for it... If there is the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars, that meants that banning red cars from the roads will save human lives...
Please explain me
Think about it. Banning red cars wont save human lives because these drivers will drive other colored cars. They won't give up on driving altogether. The problem is with drivers and not cars. Hence, you can say, there is a different cause (Drivers) for this effect (Charging higher premium) than the cause mentioned (Red color). Thus C weakens / points out the flaw.
Join the discussion

by joseph32 » Sun May 15, 2016 9:30 pm
I believe the answer should be C
Join the discussion