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.

Which one of the following is a required assumption

Expert replies
by amontobin » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:41 am
Our charity is beginning to fund expensive new schools in order to help young people gain the skills needed in the job market. Some groups complain that we are not being efficient with our donors' money because there are schools already in existence that have low enrollments and plenty of empty seats. But these people are wrong. Most of the current schools teach theoretical subjects that are useless in our economy. The new schools will teach important skills that students can use to get jobs.

Which one of the following is a required assumption of the argument above?

A Using our funds to help current schools teach more valuable skills would not be a more efficient way to help young people get jobs.
B Our charity would rather help the current schools than build new schools in scenarios where the two options are equally efficient.
C If the current schools taught subjects that came closer to meeting the needs of the job market, employers would relax their hiring requirements in order to hire students who graduate from these schools.
D Once the new schools funded by our charities are completed, they will not also have low enrollments.
E Our donors have mandated that prior to funding expensive schools, our charity must prove that there aren't any other options that are a more efficient way to meet our goal.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by elias.latour.apex » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:44 am
Upon reading the question, we realize that our job is to find an assumption. Before doing so, we must identify the conclusion.

In this case the conclusion seems to be that the charity is being efficient with donor's money. Why? Because currently existing schools do not teach the skills necessary. Said schools are too theoretical. New schools will be required.

What's the assumption? Well, the best choice seems to be (A), although I must confess a profound distaste for the option. If we negate (A), it seems to indicate that working with current schools would be a more efficient way to help young people get jobs. None of the other answers even come close. However, I note that the goal of the charity is to ensure that the young people get "the skills needed in the job market." (A), on the other hand, does not talk about the skills needed but merely "better skills" and helping young people get jobs. This is a subtle difference in objectives and phrasing that sits wrong with me. Nevertheless, it does seem to be better than any other alternative. We are required to assume that these "better skills" are "the skills needed in the job market" and that our real goal is not ensuring that young people have the requisite skills but rather that they get jobs.
Elias Latour
Verbal Specialist @ ApexGMAT
blog.apexgmat.com
+1 (646) 736-7622
Join the discussion