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.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE AWARDS 2026

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

GMATLiveTeach Starts Oct 17
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Chris Peckover, 100th-Percentile GMAT Scorer

Oct 17 · Chris Peckover
Sat · 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM ET
Oct 20 · Chris Peckover
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Oct 25 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 1:00 to 4:00 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemand 5 seats left Start anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
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 Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget 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.

State of Michigan book sales

Expert replies
by amazonviper » Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:57 pm
In the state of Michigan, from 1980 to 1989, total spending on books purchased from all sources increased by 34%. But during the same period, spending on fiction books most of which from bookstores selling only new books, grew just 16%

Which of the following statements about the period from 1980 to 1989 is best supported by the statements above?

A. Spending on nonfiction books increased by more than 34%.

B. Shoppers were more likely to buy fiction books when they went to a bookstore than they were to buy nonfiction.

C. The priced of books purchased at bookstores are higher than those of books purchased elsewhere.

D. Individual spending has increased while institutional spending has decreased.

E. The number of people who bought books from secondhand bookstores increased during this period.


Please post your opinion and PLEASE explain your reasoning. OA will be provided later :-)
__________________________________

Winners never quit..Quitters never win !!
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by rohan_vus » Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:13 pm
IMO A ... its states that % of non fnction is more than 34% becaue when overall % is 34% and for fiction books its 16% it makes it compelling to draw conclusion that more than 34% comprises for non fiction books ...
Join the discussion

by vinayakdl » Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:19 pm
IMO Answer : A

A: Since sales for Fiction has grown at 16%, it seems that sales of non-fiction are greater than 34%. Even though we cannot conclusively say this this seems most likely. No other option is supported as much as this.

E: This seems closer, but the stimuli talks about number of books sold and not about how many people purchased the books.

Please post the OA!

Vinayak
Join the discussion

by mehravikas » Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:24 pm
Is it C?

A should not be true because if total books sales increased by 34% and fiction books grew by just 16% from bookstores, then it cannot be possible that nonfiction book sales grew by more than 34%.
Join the discussion

by vinaynp » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:00 am
B), C), D) are OOS.
E) is ruled out as it focuses on number of people and we cannot support the same from passage.

IMO A) seems logical.
Join the discussion

by madhur_ahuja » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:07 am
A should be correct
Join the discussion

by amazonviper » Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:57 am
OA is indeed A. Great job guys!
__________________________________

Winners never quit..Quitters never win !!
Join the discussion

by Kenen750 » Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:12 pm
If total no of books purchased=400.

34% of 400=136.

16% of 400=64

so 400-64=336

x% of 336> 34?? Its almost..
Join the discussion

by veenu08 » Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:33 am
Why can't E be the answer
Join the discussion

by [email protected] » Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:13 am
E is not the answer because there is no fact in the argument which supports if the sales of books from second hand bookstores increased. We have no way of knowing this.

If you look at it it is a simple weighted average question. If the total average for increase in books sold is 34% and only 16% increase is contributed by the fiction section. Then, Non fiction must contribute more than 34% to get 34 as the average!!
Join the discussion