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.

Standard of living

Expert replies
by adi_800 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:48 am
Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.

Siegfried: That's simply untrue. My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents.

Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?
A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by paes » Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:51 am
IMO C

Siegfried is trying to object the Brunhilda's view : That's simply untrue

But the given example is actually consistent (not inconsistent ) with Brunhilda's view.
(Brunhilda is also saying the same thing.)
Join the discussion

by selango » Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:55 am
Siegfried object B argument by saying that is "simply untrue"

However S offers an example which is same as B argument.

Pick C
--Anand--
Join the discussion

by adi_800 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:57 am
OE for C:

(C) is incorrect because Siegfried does not offer an example that is aligned with Brunhilda's position. Au contraire, Siegfried offers an example that IS inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument
Join the discussion

by paes » Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:12 am
adi_800 wrote:OE for C:

(C) is incorrect because Siegfried does not offer an example that is aligned with Brunhilda's position. Au contraire, Siegfried offers an example that IS inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument
what is OA then ?
I don't find any other choice near the the answer.
Join the discussion

by adi_800 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:17 am
I want few more discussions to happen...
one advice would be to reconsider the choices that you eliminated too easily..

Source kaplan online tests...
Btw..can u solve the oder one frm kaplan....
road repairs...
Join the discussion

by selango » Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:20 am
Is it D?
--Anand--
Join the discussion

by reply2spg » Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:31 am
IMO Brunhilda is trying to prove that current generation is not confident. However, Siegfried says that her father and she is already doing good. Means He/She is trying to say that he/She is already confident.

And that goes good with B. I answered B for this question. But OA is weired. Let Adi post the OA.
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Join the discussion

by adi_800 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:42 am
OA is A..
Join the discussion

by prepgmat09 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:09 pm
adi_800 wrote:OA is A..
Could you please post the OE ?
Join the discussion

by FightWithGMAT » Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:50 pm
adi_800 wrote:Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.

Siegfried: That's simply untrue. My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents.

Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?
A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
Most of us would have seen "example" and "inconsistent" words and immediately marked C.
Even I did that only :)

but yes, NOT inconsistent is the TRAP. First of all, from the tone of both the guys, we can find out that they are not consistent.

Word ECONOMIST is another TRAP. Nowhere, it is mentioned that Siegfried is an ECONOMIST. So, how can he deny other's argument so easily and authoritatively.

Yes, here the case of authority plays its role. A normal person can not argue with (against) a doctor.
Join the discussion