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.

some sports historians

Expert replies
by akhpad » Mon May 10, 2010 6:08 am
According to some sports historians, professional tennis players develop unique playing styles that result from a combination of the peculiarities of each player's physical attributes and the influence of coaches during their early adaptation to the game. But when the increase in strength and endurance of modem players is discounted, it becomes readily apparent that the playing styles of the current crop of professional tennis players are no different from the styles of players from previous generations. Clearly, there is a universally efficient tennis style to which all professional tennis players conform.

The argument above is most weakened by which of the following statements?

(A) The differences in physical attributes among tennis players are even more pronounced than the sports historians believe.

(B) Few current professional tennis players are familiar with the professional tennis players of fifty years ago.

(C) The increased strength of current tennis players contributes more to the development of individual playing styles than does increased endurance.

(D) All of the early coaches of today's professional tennis players were professional tennis players themselves earlier in their lives.

(E) Weight training and greater attention to diet are the primary factors in the increased strength and stamina of the current generation of professional tennis players.

OA: D

I believe that this is a cause and effect reasoning and it can be weaken by alternate cause. The same thing is in D but I could not understood why D is fitting for this. Can some explain about it?
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by sk818020 » Mon May 10, 2010 7:13 am
The argument states that the unique forms of play arise out of physical attributes and coaching. Despite this, when increases in strength and endurance are discounted, all players share a similar style.

Its important to note at this point that the stimulus is arguing that increases in strength and endurance (physical attributes) is responsible for unique forms, not coaching.

The stimulus then concludes that because physical attributes are what give modern players their uniqueness, not coaching, there is a universally efficient style of play.

The way you could weaken this argument is to support that it was coaching that influenced modern players, not their physical attributes. The way you could do this best is to say, despite phsycial attributes, the only reason pros play the way they do is because they were all taugh by former professionals. This attacks the "universallity" in the stimulus's conclusion, because now pros are teaching pros which questions whether the their truley is a universal way to play, or it is simply how pros play.
Join the discussion

by paes » Mon May 10, 2010 10:18 pm
D is strengthening the premise that 'Playing style is effected by the coaching style'. ---> Line 1
While the conclusion is against the above premise. --> 2nd Line, But when .........
(Conclusion is saying that there is a common efficient playing style.)
Join the discussion