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.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE AWARDS 2026

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

GMATLiveTeach Starts Oct 17
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Chris Peckover, 100th-Percentile GMAT Scorer

Oct 17 · Chris Peckover
Sat · 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM ET
Oct 20 · Chris Peckover
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Oct 25 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 1:00 to 4:00 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
EALiveTeachOnDemand 5 seats left Start anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
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 Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget 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.

Using armored vehicles

Expert replies
by gmat25 » Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:11 pm
Using armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines entails an unavoidable risk of injury or fatality, but disarming and removing land mines manually currently entails an even greater such risk to those who remove land mines per mine removed. Therefore, in order to reduce the risk of injury or fatality without decelerating the effort to remove buried land mines, we must increase the use of armored vehicles and disarm fewer land mines by hand.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

A) Manual mine disarmers can be quickly trained in methods that significantly decrease their risk of injury or fatality.

B) Injuries caused by manual disarmament tend to be far more serious than injuries caused by armored vehicle detonations.

C) The delivery of armored vehicles with which to detonate buried land mines can be organized easily by military field operatives.

D) Land mines detonated by armored vehicles destabilize the land surrounding the mine, while land mines that are successfully disarmed manually cause no such damage.

E) Hiring and training those who remove mines by hand is far less costly than is importing heavy armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines.

OA given is Op A, however, i believe from Op A it is not clear that, decrease in risk using had will be lesser than using vehicle. So how this Op actually weakening the argument??????
Princeton Review CAT - 710(Q-51, V-37) --> silly mistakes screwed up my VERBAL
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by smackmartine » Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:29 pm
IMO A

This is a cause - effect argument
eg.(X--->Y )

To weaken cause and effect scenario the answer would say Y--->X or Z--->Y or X and Y are correlated.

[spoiler]A)[/spoiler] says Z-->Y (Z is alternative explanation)

i.e the successful detonation without much risk can also be achieved even without armored vehicles by simply training people on methods that significantly decrease their risk of injury or fatality.

If this is true the conclusion is not strong enough to support that use of armored vehicles is must in order to reduce the risk of injury or fatality .

B) Injuries caused by manual disarmament tend to be far more serious than injuries caused by armored vehicle detonations. (comparing the degree of seriousness would not weaken the conclusion)

C) The delivery of armored vehicles with which to detonate buried land mines can be organized easily by military field operatives. (this supporting the conclusion somehow)

D) Land mines detonated by armored vehicles destabilize the land surrounding the mine, while land mines that are successfully disarmed manually cause no such damage. (we are not talking about all disarming the land mines in general but only the successful ones which are not the true representatives of all land mines disarmament)

E) Hiring and training those who remove mines by hand is far less costly than is importing heavy armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines. (cost out of scope)
Smack is Back ...
It takes time and effort to explain, so if my comment helped you please press Thanks button :)
Join the discussion

by gmat25 » Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:57 pm
Hi, i agree with you but don't u think the extent to which the risk be reduced is necessary to know??? What if the risk using hand be reduced but still not to the extent to which risk reduced using vehicle. Let say using vehicle, the risk is 1 person get hurt out of 100 and even after training as Op A suggests still 50 people are getting hurt using hand out of 100 (assume 90 people are getting hurt out of 100 without training for hand) so u see there is a significant reduction in risk using hand after training but still if u compare with the risk involved in using vehicle then still its not up to the mark. Or u are assuming that this word SIGNIFICANT means risk using had is comparable to risk using vehicle????
Princeton Review CAT - 710(Q-51, V-37) --> silly mistakes screwed up my VERBAL
Join the discussion

by smackmartine » Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:38 am
First of all, GMAT follows a certain paradigm for CR question including Cause-and-Effect questions. There are many things you can consider in real world and still make a conclusion weak. However, that will give you satisfaction but not score. I do agree with you that someway or the other the degree of seriousness may weaken the argument ,but sticking around the scope of the argument will be more fruitful. All CR books describe only commonly tested reasoning so its all about what GMAT likes.

Moreover, GMAT does asks you Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

To your point , the passage does not give any evidence about # of people involved in detonating land mines. Rather it talks about people doing this job manually. Option A says if people are trained the Risk can be significantly reduced--> while the author says there is simply no way to achieve this other than using armored vehicles.(How many people involved in the operation?? Not mentioned and so we don't care!!!)
Smack is Back ...
It takes time and effort to explain, so if my comment helped you please press Thanks button :)
Join the discussion

by GmatKiss » Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:19 am
IMO:A

B: Strengthens
C: Strnegthens
D: Poor reason to evaluate, damage to land mine is not a threat.
E: Cost is not a major threat than fatality.

Eliminating these A stands out!
Join the discussion

by BlindVision » Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:24 am
gmat25 wrote:Using armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines entails an unavoidable risk of injury or fatality, but disarming and removing land mines manually currently entails an even greater such risk to those who remove land mines per mine removed. Therefore, in order to reduce the risk of injury or fatality without decelerating the effort to remove buried land mines, we must increase the use of armored vehicles and disarm fewer land mines by hand.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

A) Manual mine disarmers can be quickly trained in methods that significantly decrease their risk of injury or fatality.

B) Injuries caused by manual disarmament tend to be far more serious than injuries caused by armored vehicle detonations.

C) The delivery of armored vehicles with which to detonate buried land mines can be organized easily by military field operatives.

D) Land mines detonated by armored vehicles destabilize the land surrounding the mine, while land mines that are successfully disarmed manually cause no such damage.

E) Hiring and training those who remove mines by hand is far less costly than is importing heavy armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines.

OA given is Op A, however, i believe from Op A it is not clear that, decrease in risk using had will be lesser than using vehicle. So how this Op actually weakening the argument??????
D
Life is a Test
Join the discussion