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.

slower students

Expert replies
by sumanr84 » Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:34 am
Sarah: The principal's recent proposal to separate math classes into fast and slow sections will help slow students as well as the more mathematically adept. If the less adept students are put in a special section, they will be able to proceed at a slower pace, which will enable them to absorb their lessons more effectively.

Nina: On the contrary, once labeled as "slow," these students will perceive themselves as slow and act accordingly, lowering their own standards as their teachers lower their expectations of them.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens Nina's argument?

a. The proposal was made primarily with the intent of benefiting the slower students in the class.
b. "Slow" students are not necessarily less bright, but are often underutilizing their abilities.
c. Teachers should spend extra time and effort with their less able students.
d. Slower students do not usually learn as much from fast-paced peers as they do from slow-paced lessons.
e. Most teachers prefer to split classes into slow and fast groups.

Kaplan cat3, OA later
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by outreach » Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:04 am
i feel it should be D
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/
Join the discussion

by kvcpk » Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:47 am
IMO D.. Would be surprised if its not D.


a. The proposal was made primarily with the intent of benefiting the slower students in the class.
Doesnt touchbase on Neha's comments
b. "Slow" students are not necessarily less bright, but are often underutilizing their abilities.
Strengthens Neha's words
c. Teachers should spend extra time and effort with their less able students.
One of the ways.. but doesnt weaken
d. Slower students do not usually learn as much from fast-paced peers as they do from slow-paced lessons.
Looks good
e. Most teachers prefer to split classes into slow and fast groups.
Preference of teachers is irrelvant to the discussion
Join the discussion

by hardik.jadeja » Sun Jul 04, 2010 1:27 pm
I somehow like B more than D, since it says "Slow" students are not necessarily less bright.
Join the discussion

by sk818020 » Sun Jul 04, 2010 6:17 pm
I'm gonna say I don't think its D. The reason I think its not D is because D says slow students don't learn as much from past paced peers as they do from slow classes. This point is irrelevant. We're not worried about how much they learn from their peers. Were worried about how much they learn in general.

Nina's argument summarized:

This will have the opposite effects because it will cause "slow" students to perceive themselves as "slow", which will in turn make them slow.

What Nina does in her argument is that may not be warranted is she assigned a meaning to slow that Sarah did not give us any evidence of. Nina takes slow to mean lower expectations. We can not say for sure whether Sarah would agree with this. To defeat nina's argument we would need to address this by clarifying what slow means. B does this.

IMO the answer is B.
Last edited by sk818020 on Sun Jul 04, 2010 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion

by sk818020 » Sun Jul 04, 2010 6:18 pm
Could you please confirm the OA?
Join the discussion

by sumanr84 » Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:16 pm
I was confused b/w B and D and finally choose B and got it wrong. OA : D

OE: Nina does not believe that splitting math classes will ultimately benefit the slower students. As evidence for this point, she asserts that designating a class as slow will result in a self-fulfilling prophecy - the students will think of themselves as poor students and their performance levels will drop. We are looking for an answer that will weaken this position. (D) totally undermines Nina's position that slower students should not be split into a class of their own because their performance will falter. On the contrary, this answer tells us that the students will learn MORE in a slow-paced class. Splitting the class will prove beneficial for them. (A) is irrelevant to the argument because it focuses on the motivation behind splitting the class. It does not matter WHY the proposal is being made. That does not impact Nina's point that the slower students will be disadvantaged by the action. This neither strengthens nor weakens the argument. (B) does not weaken the argument because it does not address what impact splitting the "slow" students into their own class will have on their performance. This answer just tells us why these students are not performing well. (C) has no effect on Nina's argument. What teachers should or should not do is outside the scope of this argument, which is about the effects of LABELING students as slow. (E) is outside the scope of the argument. What teachers PREFER to do is irrelevant to Nina's position about slow students performing less well because they perceive themselves to be slow students.
Join the discussion