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.

Super tough CR [Experts help required]

Expert replies
by thestartupguy » Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:24 am
Lyme disease is caused by a bacterium transmitted to humans by deer ticks. Generally, deer ticks pick up the bacterium while in the larval stage by feeding on infected white-footed mice. However, certain other species on which the larvae feed do not harbor the bacterium. If the population of these species increased, more of the larvae would be feeding on uninfected hosts, so the number of ticks acquiring the bacterium would likely decline.

Which of the following would it be most important to ascertain in evaluating the argument?

(A) Whether populations of the other species on which deer tick larvae feed are found only in the areas also inhabited by white-footed mice.
(B) Whether the size of the deer tick population is currently limited by the availability of animals for the tick's larval stage to feed on.
(C) Whether the infected deer tick population could be controlled by increasing the number of animals that prey on white-footed mice.
(D) Whether deer ticks that were not infected as larvae can become infected as adults by feeding on deer on which infected deer ticks have fed.
(E) Whether the other species on which deer tick larvae feed harbor any other bacteria that ticks transmit to humans.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by thestartupguy » Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:31 am
IMO B. Though I'm not sure
Join the discussion


by Gaurav 2013-fall » Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:21 pm
For the solution to work,we need to know whether there is a direct link between the DT population and the white foot mice availability. Only if there is a direct linkt between DT and the WFM, the suggested solution will work, but if there is no direct link between these two (that is, DT and WFM), the solution will not work. So we need to know whether there is a link between these two things (i.e the DT population and WFM availability) to complete the argument.

Choice B does this and hence is the correct option.

Let me know if this does not help!
Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It is a very mean and nasty place and it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't how hard you hit; it's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done. Now, if you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hit, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you are because of him, or her, or anybody. Cowards do that and that ain't you. You're better than that! (Rocky VI)
Join the discussion

by saviogmat » Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:08 am
I would go for D. Whats the OA ?
Join the discussion

by mv12 » Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:46 am
plus 1 for D
Join the discussion

by abcgmat » Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:37 am
I was thinking answer would be C. But checking the argument again I find I agree with others
correct answer could be B
Conclusion: If we increase the population of other species, then the number of deer ticks getting infected with disease may decline.

Assumption would be : Do other species exists enough in number to feed deer ticks

(A) Whether populations of the other species on which deer tick larvae feed are found only in the areas also inhabited by white-footed mice.
--If there are little far, won't affect the argument

(B) Whether the size of the deer tick population is currently limited by the availability of animals for the tick's larval stage to feed on.
--This close to the assumption we can make from argument, so i feel its correct

(C) Whether the infected deer tick population could be controlled by increasing the number of animals that prey on white-footed mice.

--The conclusion is whether we can decrease the deer ticks getting affected by L disease by making them feed on other uninfected species. We are not bothered about the deer population , we want to decline the number of dicks getting affected. We are not told in argument that deer ticks die when they gets disease

(D) Whether deer ticks that were not infected as larvae can become infected as adults by feeding on deer on which infected deer ticks have fed.
-- this is little attrative, But the argument gives the condition 'when the deer ticks feed on uninfected host'. If infected dicks have fed on deer then deer might have got affected so is no more uninfected

The argument was tough to understand as I didnt know deer ticks are different from deer

(E) Whether the other species on which deer tick larvae feed harbor any other bacteria that ticks transmit to humans.
--other bacteria is not part of conclusion.
Join the discussion

by hey_thr67 » Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:33 am
This argument is based on the assumption that deer's population won't increase. The right answer B has actually hit on the assumption and questions the gap between conclusion and assumption.The conclusion doesn't say anything about population of deer.

D doesn't contribute to the discussion. Lets say even if the situation is right, even then no one can guarantee that deer population will be huge to affect humans.
Join the discussion

by ceilidh.erickson » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:12 am
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Join the discussion