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.

test 28

Expert replies
by vaivish » Tue Sep 16, 2008 8:06 am
Over the past 20 years, skiing has become a relatively safe sport due to improvement in ski equipment. There has been a 50 percent drop in the number of ski injuries over the last 20 years. Clearly, however, there have not been decreases in the number of injuries in all categories, as statistical data readily show, for although broken legs and ankle injuries have decreased by an astounding 90 percent, knee injuries now represent 16 percent of all ski injuries, up significantly from the 11 percent of 20 years ago.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument does which one of the following?
(A) It fails to allow for there being ski injuries other than broken legs, ankle injuries, and knee injuries.
(B) It infers disparate effects from the same single cause.
(C) It ignores the possibility that the number of skiers has increased over the past 20 years.
(D) It assumes that an increase in the proportion of knee injuries rules out a decrease in the number of knee injuries.
(E) It proceeds as though there could be a greater decease in injuries in each category of injury than there is in injuries overall.


Oa is d.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by anju » Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:05 am
I would have gone with C... I don't know why D is the correct choice.

Anyone?
Join the discussion

by gmat009 » Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:14 am
A looks better than any other option
Join the discussion

by nikhilagrawal » Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:31 pm
vaivish,

Is the 4th option written correctly .. pls check !!!
Join the discussion

by aglope » Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:58 pm
D.

Reasoning: The argument states that there has been a decrease in ski injuries; however, the number of knee injuries has increased. Just because the percentage of knee injuries increased does not mean that the total number of knee injuries increased. This is a percent/amount flaw.

For example: Assume that 20 years ago, there were 100 total injuries and 15 of those were knee related. That means that 15% of the injuries were knee related. Based on the information provided in the argument, the number of injuries has decreased by 50%. That means there are now only 50 total injuries. Let’s assume that the number of knee related injuries decreased to 10. That means that the knee related injuries is 20% ((10 injuries / 50 total injuries) *100). This is an example where the number of injuries increased and the percentage increased.
Ans. Choice D is correct because the argument's flaw is that it does not rule out that the number, the actual number, not the proportion, of knee related injuries has not decreased.

Hope this helps.
Join the discussion

by nikhilagrawal » Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:33 am
very good expln....
Join the discussion

by khanshainur » Wed May 11, 2016 3:33 am
I would go with option D as the correct option
Join the discussion