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
Start free 5-day trial
Read 559 reviewsTarget Test Prep

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Total books and average books

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:12 am
by jagan.y » Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:56 pm
30 years ago residents of Pandora County used to buy an average of 10 books every year. Today the residents of Pandora County buy an average of 3 books every year. Therefore it can be concluded that book sales in Pandora County must have fallen over these 30 years.
The argument rests in which of the following assumptions?
A. The residents of Pandora County used to have more free time 30 years ago than they do no
B. The residents of Pandora county have many more activities that vie for their attraction today than 30 years
C. The population of Pandora County has not increased significantly in the last 30 years
D. The literacy rate hasn't significantly changed in Pandora County over the past 30 years
E. Those residents of Pandora County who used to read 30 years ago have now not become too old to read
Source: Aristotle CR Grail
[spoiler]OA: C[/spoiler]
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pmFollowed by: 247 members
Thanked: 1443 times

by ceilidh.erickson » Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:15 am
When you're faced with a "find the assumption" question on CR, your job is to identify the logical gap in the reasoning of the argument. One way to do that is to ask yourself - is it possible for the premises to be true, but for the conclusion not to be?

We're given that per-person book consumption has fallen from 10 books per year to 3 books per year. Is there any way that overall book sales would not have fallen? Sure - if there were more people in the county overall. Clearly the author is assuming that the population remained constant. If that assumption were true, then a per-capita sales decline would mean an overall decline.

C is the only answer choice that speaks to that assumption. All of the others deal with explanations for why this decline might have happened, but we don't know - or care - why. We just need to resolve the missing link between per-capita (proportional) information and total number information.

Pay particular attention to gaps between PROPORTIONAL information and REAL-NUMBER information, or for any time the metric used to measure something changes. It's a popular logical gap type on the GMAT (both on CR and DS). For more information, see these posts:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/i-m-doubting ... tml#551227
https://www.beatthegmat.com/cr-evaluate- ... tml#558393
https://www.beatthegmat.com/statistics-c ... tml#564609
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:12 am

by jagan.y » Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:42 pm
"We're given that per-person book consumption has fallen from 10 books per year to 3 books per year."

My concern with the stimulus was that I feel there is an ambiguity in the stimulus about the statement you made. The stimulus states "the residents". How can this ambiguity be sorted.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1