Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
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.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

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

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 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
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
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
GMATOnDemandStart 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

Thyrian Lawmaker

Expert replies
by komal » Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:29 pm
Timer
00:00
Your answer
Difficulty–

right wrong

Pick an answer to see how members did

Thyrian lawmaker: Thyria's Cheese Importation Board inspects all cheese shipments to Thyria and rejects
shipments not meeting specified standards. Yet only 1 percent is ever rejected. Therefore, since the health
consequences and associated economic costs of not rejecting that 1 percent are negligible, whereas the
board's operating costs are considerable, for economic reasons alone the board should be disbanded.
Consultant: I disagree. The threat of having their shipments rejected deters many cheese exporters from
shipping substandard product.

The consultant responds to the lawmaker's argument by

(A) rejecting the lawmaker's argument while proposing that the standards according to which the board
inspects imported cheese should be raised

(B) providing evidence that the lawmaker's argument has significantly overestimated the cost of maintaining
the board

(C) objecting to the lawmaker's introducing into the discussion factors that are not strictly economic

(D) pointing out a benefit of maintaining the board, which'the lawmaker's argument has failed to consider

(E) shifting the discussion from the argument at hand to an attack on the integrity of the cheese inspectors

OA D
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by fibbonnaci » Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:59 pm
Notice the term- 'I disagree'. this disagreement is against the conclusion that the board must be disbanded.
Premise: The threat of having their shipments rejected deters many cheese exporters from
shipping substandard product.
so you see the consultant is disagreeing to the conclusion of the lawmaker by showing the advantage the board elicits due to its presence.

Lets look at options now.

(A) rejecting the lawmaker's argument while proposing that the standards according to which the board
inspects imported cheese should be raised [the consultant does not give any further advice. he just shows the advantage of the existence of a board. Eliminated!]

(B) providing evidence that the lawmaker's argument has significantly overestimated the cost of maintaining
the board
[consultant does not attack the cost of maintaining the board at all. Eliminated!]

(C) objecting to the lawmaker's introducing into the discussion factors that are not strictly economic [neither the lawmaker nor the consultant introduce any other external unrelated factor. Eliminated!]

(D) pointing out a benefit of maintaining the board, which'the lawmaker's argument has failed to consider [Correct!this perfectly sits in with our reasoning.]

(E) shifting the discussion from the argument at hand to an attack on the integrity of the cheese inspectors [consultant talks only about the board and not on the integrity of any person. Eliminated!]

Hope this helps!
Join the discussion