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
Start free 5-day trial
Read 559 reviewsTarget Test Prep

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Find the Flaw!

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:19 amFollowed by: 7 members
Thanked: 25 times
by Ozlemg » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:50 am
Time and again it has been shown that students who attend colleges with low faculty/student ratios get the most well-rounded education. As a result, when my children are ready to attend college, I'll be sure they attend a school with a very small student population.
Which of the following, if true, identifies the greatest flaw in the reasoning above?

.A low faculty/student ratio is the effect of a well-rounded education, not its source.
.Intelligence should be considered the result of childhood environment, not advanced education.
.A very small student population does not by itself, ensure a low faculty/student ratio.
.Parental desires and preferences rarely determines a child's choice of a college or university.
.Students must take advantage of the low faculty/student ratio by intentionally choosing small classes.

Altough it is apperant that the answer is C, on the other hand A raises some questions in my mind? Could someone elaborate?
The more you suffer before the test, the less you will do so in the test! :)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:55 amFollowed by: 53 members
Location: India
Thanked: 375 times

by Frankenstein » Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:01 am
Hi,
If the conclusion were 'I'll be sure they attend a school with a very low faculty/student ratio because it results in better education.', then A would be correct.
But, here he is not considering a school with low ratio but he is picking the school with small student population. It doesn't ensure low faculty/student ratio.
Cheers!

Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:34 am
Location: india
Thanked: 1 times

by dinaroneo » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:10 am
Hi,
If the conclusion were 'I'll be sure they attend a school with a very low faculty/student ratio because it results in better education.', then A would be correct.
But, here he is not considering a school with low ratio but he is picking the school with small student population. It doesn't ensure low faculty/student ratio.
You said answer would be A if the conclusion were 'I'll be sure they attend a school with a very low faculty/student ratio because it results in better education.' but how can low faculty/student ratio be the effect of a well-rounded education??
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:55 amFollowed by: 53 members
Location: India
Thanked: 375 times

by Frankenstein » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:28 am
dinaroneo wrote:
Hi,
If the conclusion were 'I'll be sure they attend a school with a very low faculty/student ratio because it results in better education.', then A would be correct.
But, here he is not considering a school with low ratio but he is picking the school with small student population. It doesn't ensure low faculty/student ratio.
You said answer would be A if the conclusion were 'I'll be sure they attend a school with a very low faculty/student ratio because it results in better education.' but how can low faculty/student ratio be the effect of a well-rounded education??
Hi,
We are actually stating that the causal relation is reversed. Because the authors believes that the cause and effect relationship is correctly stated, showing that the relationship is backwards (the claimed effect is actually the cause of the claimed cause) undermines the conclusion.
Cheers!

Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:34 am
Location: india
Thanked: 1 times

by dinaroneo » Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:20 am
Hey

Got your point! but then this is not weaken the argument question type, right?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:19 amFollowed by: 43 members
Location: Chennai, India
Thanked: 206 times
GMAT Score:640

by GmatKiss » Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:24 am
IMO C
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pmFollowed by: 512 members
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:57 pm
True! This is not a weaken question, but a flaw question is very similar it is just that you describe the flaw instead of stating the fact that would weaken. So treat them much the same.

I do not think that A is an appropriate answer choice if we are looking to reverse causation.

A low faculty/ student ratio can be a cause of well - rounded education. But how can a well - rounded education be the cause of a low faculty/ student ratio?

That makes no sense from a logical perspective.

I think in this case if it were a weaken question you might want to find an alternate cause but to reverse the cause is tough.

Here is one where the causes can be reversed - it is an LSAT question. Those who own a laptop make more money so owning a laptop is the cause of higher pay. Of course we can say the earning more money will have a better chance of owning a laptop so the cause is reversed.

But on this question we might have an alternate cause such as an active student population results in well-rounded education.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1