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.

Toddlers are watching television more than twice as much as

Expert replies
by BTGmoderatorRO » Fri Mar 30, 2018 2:09 pm
Toddlers are watching television more than twice as much as they did two decades ago. A recent research showed that because of this, toddlers today develop their motor skills slower than children their age in the compared period. Therefore, toddlers who spend most of their time in front of the TV have less developed motor skills than those who spend the majority of their time in other occupations.

The argument depends on which of the following assumptions?

A) Television can be used to enhance many skills of children aged 1-3.
B) Overall, watching television has a negative effect on young children.
C) Toddlers should be encouraged to play outdoors more.
D) Toddlers who watch less television are engaged in activities which develop their motor skills.
E) Only the physical removal of the television set from homes with young children will enable them to develop their motor skills more quickly.
OA is d
what is D the best option and not C?
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Ttt

by Akrita@Jamboree » Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:19 am
This is an Assumption question. The best and most foolproof way to approach an assumption question is to use the Negation Strategy. The fundamental idea is that an assumption is the foundation of an argument, and has to be absolutely true for the argument to be valid. Therefore, if the assumption is NOT TRUE, then there is no way that the argument can be true. In the negation strategy, we negate the options, and see which option invalidates/completely destroys the argument - this option which, when negated, totally destroys the argument, is the correct assumption.

Firstly, let us look at the argument given in this question. The argument states that since toddlers watch more television (more than 2x times) today than two decades ago, they have less developed motor skills. In other words, the argument tries to establish a causal connection between television and slower development of motor skills. The negation of the correct assumption would destroy this causality. Let us go through the negation of the options provided below:

Option A - Television cannot be used to enhance many skills of children aged 1-3 . This option does not talk about motor skills - INCORRECT
Option B - Overall, watching television does not have a negative effect on young children. Same as A - INCORRECT
Option C - Toddlers should not be encouraged to play outdoors more. 'Should' is never correct in an assumption question. Either way, the negation of C doesn't break the linkage between enhanced television viewing and slow development of motor skills - INCORRECT
Option D - Toddlers who watch less television are not engaged in activities which develop their motor skills. Perfect - this says that there is no correlation between TV viewing and development of motor skills. Since the negation of D destroys our conclusion, this must be the correct assumption.
Option E - Only the physical removal of the television set from homes with young children will not enable them to develop their motor skills more quickly. This is irrelevant - we are not concerned with the physical removal of TV sets - INCORRECT.

Hence, since the negation of Option D negates our conclusion, this is our best answer.

Please let me know in case anything doesn't make sense.
Join the discussion