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.

School supritendent

Expert replies
by dv2020 » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:10 am
School superintendent: It is a sad fact that, until now, entry into the academically best high school in our district has been restricted to the children of people who were wealthy enough to pay the high tuition. Parents who were previously denied the option of sending their children to this school now have this option since I am replacing the tuition requirement with a requirement that allows only those who live in the neighbourhood of the school to attend.
The superintendent's claim about the effect of replacing the tuition requirement relies on the assumption that
(A) the residents of the school's neighbourhood tend to be wealthy
(B) people other than those wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition are able to live in the neighbourhood of the school.
(C) people less wealthy than those who were able to pay the old tuition are in the majority in the district.
(D) there are no high schools in the district other than the one referred to by the superintendent.
(E) there are many people not wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition who wish to have their children attend the school.


OA is B
Last edited by dv2020 on Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by g.shankaran » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:19 am
dv2020 wrote:School superintendent: It is a sad fact that, until now, entry into the academically best high school in our district has been restricted to the children of people who were wealthy enough to pay the high tuition. Parents who were previously denied the option of sending their children to this school now have this option since I am replacing the tuition requirement with a requirement that allows only those who live in the neighbourhood of the school to attend.
The superintendent's claim about the effect of replacing the tuition requirement relies on the assumption that
(A) the residents of the school's neighbourhood tend to be wealthy
(B) people other than those wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition are able to live in the neighbourhood of the school.
(C) people less wealthy than those who were able to pay the old tuition are in the majority in the district.
(D) there are no high schools in the district other than the one referred to by the superintendent.
(E) there are many people not wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition who wish to have their children attend the school.
IMO B
Join the discussion

by itsmebharat » Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:42 pm
IMO B, please share OA and if possible, explanations as well.
I am not an Expert, please feel free to suggest if there is an error.
Join the discussion

by cans » Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:51 am
IMO B
a) if neighbourhood has wealthy residents, then there will be almost no effect of new requirement.
b) if people not enough wealthy live in neighbourhood, then only they can send their children to school and thus requirement will have effect
c) they should be in majority of neighbourhood and not in district
d) irrelevant
e) but we don't know if they reside in neighbourhood or not.
Join the discussion

by HSPA » Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:56 am
+1 for B in 2.17sec.. Not that easy one.. but a good one... similar to those on actual test.
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
Join the discussion

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:18 am
The negation method works here as well.

The superintendent's argument is that, by changing the entrance requirement from having the tuition to living in the neighborhood, the "poor" students will no longer be denied access to the school.

If we negate B, we are essentially saying that no "poor" students live in the neighborhood of the school. This means that the "poor" students will still be denied access to the school.

Since the negated statement kills the superintendent's argument, it must be the correct answer.

Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Image
Join the discussion

by galaxian » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:37 am
Could you plz explain how we negate & identify ? Like how Negating C wont work in this case ?
Join the discussion

by vikram4689 » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:30 pm
1:26 min. IMO B

@galaxian
(B) people other than those wealthy enough to have paid the old tuition are able to live in the neighbourhood of the school.
Negation of B: poor people are NOT able to live nearby

Therefore changing the requirement would have NO effect.

(C) people less wealthy than those who were able to pay the old tuition are in the majority in the district.
Negation of C: less wealthy people are NOT in majority in the district. OR less wealthy people are in minority in the district.

But this is make the conclusion FALL on its KNEES because even if a minority section is benefited then changing the requirement is good.

Negation should always make the conclusion FALL on its KNEES as it is in B.

Hope it helps
[/spoiler]
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Join the discussion

by cans » Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:32 pm
galaxian wrote:Could you plz explain how we negate & identify ? Like how Negating C wont work in this case ?
(C) people less wealthy than those who were able to pay the old tuition are in the majority in the district.
majority of district doesn't mean majority of neighbourhood. Maybe none of them is in neighbourhood and thus tuition requirement won't have any effect at all.
If my post helped you- let me know by pushing the thanks button ;)

Contact me about long distance tutoring!
[email protected]

Cans!!
Join the discussion