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.

Town Councilor: LSAT

Expert replies
by ankit0411 » Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 pm
Town Councilor: The only reason for the town to have ordinances restricting where skateboarding can be done would be to protect children from danger. Skateboarding in the town's River Park is undoubtedly dangerous, but we should not pass an ordinance prohibiting it. If children cannot skateboard in the park, they will most certainly skateboard in the streets. And skateboarding in the streets is more dangerous that skateboarding in the park.

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the town councilor's argument?

(a) The reason for requiring environmental reviews is to ensure that projected developments do not harm the natural environment. Currently, environmental concerns are less compelling than economic concerns, but in the long run, the environment must be protected. Therefore, the requirement for environmental reviews should not be waived.
(b) Insecticides are designed to protect crops against insect damage. Aphids damage tomato crops, but using insecticides against aphids kills wasps that prey on insecticide-resistant pests. Since aphids damage tomato crops less than the insecticide-resistant pests do, insecticides should not be used against aphids on tomato crops.
(c) The purpose of compulsory vaccination for schoolchildren was to protect both the children themselves and others in the community against smallpox. Smallpox was indeed a dreadful disease, but it has now been eliminated from the word's population. So children should not be vaccinated against it.
(d) The function of a sealer on wood siding is to retard deterioration caused by weather. However, cedar is a wood that is naturally resistant to weather-related damage and thus does not need additional protection. Sealers, therefore, should not be applied to cedar siding.
(e) Traffic patterns that involve one-way streets are meant to accelerate the flow of traffic in otherwise congested areas. However, it would be detrimental to the South Main Street area to have traffic move faster. So traffic pattern involving one-way streets should not be implemented there.

OA to follow after some discussion.
Don't predict future , create it !
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by everything's eventual » Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:59 pm
Wow...this is a tough one...

My understanding of the question stem is as follows :

Ordinances restricting places where skateboarding can be done would protect children from danger. Such ordinances will force children to do Y if X is restricted. Y is more dangerous/detrimental than X,so X should not be restricted.

I find it very difficult to actually explain why each wrong option is wrong. But the only option in line with my understanding of the question stem is [spoiler]B)[/spoiler].

Insecticides are designed to protect crops but if they are used then it becomes more detrimental to the tomato crops. So insecticides should not be used. ( Insecticides = Ordinances , Children = crops)

I would've chosen B
Last edited by everything's eventual on Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion

by ankit0411 » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:14 pm
everything's eventual wrote:Wow...this is a tough one...

My understanding of the question stem is as follows :

Ordinances restricting places where skateboarding can be done would protect children from danger. Such ordinances will force children to do Y if X is restricted. Y is more dangerous/detrimental than X,so X should not be restricted.

I find it very difficult to actually explain why each wrong option is wrong. But the only option in line with my understanding of the question stem is [spoiler]B)[/spoiler].

I would've chosen B

Your right but why not E ?
Don't predict future , create it !
Join the discussion

by everything's eventual » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:22 pm
I just edited my earlier reply a bit.

Anyway, even I had shortlisted E. The question stem mentions that "something" more dangerous will happen if the ordinance is implemented. Option B states the " something " more dangerous will happen if insecticides are used. Option E only states that it is detrimental and does not mention what will happen if traffic moves faster.

I hope I am being clear.
Join the discussion

by ankit0411 » Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:35 am
everything's eventual wrote:I just edited my earlier reply a bit.

Anyway, even I had shortlisted E. The question stem mentions that "something" more dangerous will happen if the ordinance is implemented. Option B states the " something " more dangerous will happen if insecticides are used. Option E only states that it is detrimental and does not mention what will happen if traffic moves faster.

I hope I am being clear.
Yea, that makes some sense !
Don't predict future , create it !
Join the discussion

by kassim » Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:22 am
B but it took me 5 min to answer it
Join the discussion

by vikram4689 » Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:59 am
my reason for why E is incorrect

both question stem and B discuss a situation in which implementing an ordinance to prevent a dangerous situation will lead to even more dangerous situation. eventhough E says more congestion will result but E does not talk about the same place from where congestion was intended to remove. I mean flaw in E is that ,unlike in B, more dangerous situation is NOT created in the same place where action was initialized to prevent a dangerous situation.

i hope it helps
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Join the discussion