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.

Tough CR - Knewton

Expert replies
by voodoo_child » Thu Jun 09, 2011 3:29 pm
Splint bones in the front legs of horses serve only to absorb shock to the front feet. This shock is generated only because horses run. Thus, the fact that Eohippus, an ancestor of the horse, has similar bones in its front legs provides evidence for the hypothesis that Eohippus moved by running, not just by walking.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument in the passage?


(A) Eohippus' splint bones were far more similar to the splint bones of modern horses than to the splint bones of elephants, which usually walk.

(B) It is unknown whether ancestors of the modern horse other than Eohippus had bones similar to splint bones in their front legs.

(C) The mechanism used by horses for absorbing shock could, theoretically, work for similar creatures such as Eohippus.

(D) Not all horses that have splint bones to absorb shock live in regions where the hardness of the ground is similar to that in the regions inhabited by Eohippus.

(E) Other ancestors of the horse that moved only by walking had bones in their front legs similar to those that Eohippus had.


Please explain your answer!
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by LIL » Thu Jun 09, 2011 3:55 pm
(e)

the passage says this:

horses' legs today have special bones which allow them to run. eohippus, an ancestor of today's horses, had similar bones in its legs. therefore, eohippus must have used these bones for running.

we want to weaken the argument that eohippus "must have used these bones for running"

(e) says that other ancestors of the horse that moved only by walking also have these bones. this would weaken the argument that eohippus must have used the bones for running, since these other horses moved "only by walking"
Join the discussion

by honeysn » Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:36 pm
I will also go with E

Option E states that other ancestors of horses that moved "only" by walking had similar bones. Thus having the same bone cannot justify that Eohippus moved by running. -> Weakens that argument
Join the discussion

by sunnyjohn » Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:04 pm
I would take this as a Cause-Effect Weakening Question.

Cause : Split bones
Effect : Running, not walking.

Choice (E) correctly weakens the Argument by showing that "Cause occurred but effect did not".

Flaw with other options:
(A) Comparison of Eohippus with modern horse and elephants. ( Elephants ? Unrelated topic)
(B) Split bones in other Other ancestor ( Unrelated topic)
(C) Mechanism of shock absorbing (Unrelated topic)
(D) Location ( Unrelated topic).

Because of unusual language it was little difficult to understand the stimulus, It took me more than 1:20 mins to understand. However options were quite easy to kill.
Join the discussion

by M09 » Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:20 am
voodoo_child wrote:Splint bones in the front legs of horses serve only to absorb shock to the front feet. This shock is generated only because horses run. Thus, the fact that Eohippus, an ancestor of the horse, has similar bones in its front legs provides evidence for the hypothesis that Eohippus moved by running, not just by walking.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument in the passage?


(A) Eohippus' splint bones were far more similar to the splint bones of modern horses than to the splint bones of elephants, which usually walk.

(B) It is unknown whether ancestors of the modern horse other than Eohippus had bones similar to splint bones in their front legs.

(C) The mechanism used by horses for absorbing shock could, theoretically, work for similar creatures such as Eohippus.

(D) Not all horses that have splint bones to absorb shock live in regions where the hardness of the ground is similar to that in the regions inhabited by Eohippus.

(E) Other ancestors of the horse that moved only by walking had bones in their front legs similar to those that Eohippus had.


Please explain your answer!
IMO E
Join the discussion

by vishalkc2 » Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:29 am
OMO E
Join the discussion