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.

women who ran for state and national offices

Expert replies
by uptowngirl92 » Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:58 pm
Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men. However, only about fifteen percent of the candidates for these offices were women. Therefore, the reason there are so few women who win elections for these offices is not that women have difficulty winning elections but that so few women want to run.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion given?

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection.
(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women.
(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices.
(D) The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women.
(E) Many more women than men who want to run for state and national offices do not because they cannot get adequate funding for their campaigns.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by madhur_ahuja » Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:43 pm
IMO A
Join the discussion

by mehravikas » Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:49 pm
IMO - E...explanation given below...!!

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection. - close contender
(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women. - irrelevant
(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices. - strengthens the argument
(D) The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women. - irrelevant info
(E) Many more women than men who want to run for state and national offices do not because they cannot get adequate funding for their campaigns. - This options shows that more women than men want to run for elections but they are not able to because women do not get adequate funding.
Join the discussion

by jainrahul1985 » Sun Sep 19, 2010 6:24 pm
IMO E . Because we need to undermine that not the ability of women but someother reason why women can't win election .

I don't think A can be the answer . Please suggest
Join the discussion

by ov25 » Sun Sep 19, 2010 8:11 pm
A) last year women who won reelection -- too specific... we are dealing with likelihood of women winning elections in general
E - imo the right answer -- women are discouraged due to lack of funding rather than prospects of winning
Join the discussion

by diebeatsthegmat » Sun Sep 19, 2010 11:31 pm
uptowngirl92 wrote:Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men. However, only about fifteen percent of the candidates for these offices were women. Therefore, the reason there are so few women who win elections for these offices is not that women have difficulty winning elections but that so few women want to run.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion given?

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection.
(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women.
(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices.
(D) The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women.
(E) Many more women than men who want to run for state and national offices do not because they cannot get adequate funding for their campaigns.
the conlusion is that the women dont want to run, not because they have difficult to win the position and we have to weaken this and E is what we need....E states another reason explain why they cant run for the position or E indirectly weaken the conclusion. E says the women actually want to run but the lack of money to run
Join the discussion

by goyalsau » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:42 am
Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men. However, only about fifteen percent of the candidates for these offices were women. Therefore, the reason there are so few women who win elections for these offices is not that women have difficulty winning elections but that so few women want to run.

Premise - Man and Women both have the same likely hood of winning the election.
Counter Premise - Currently women hold only 15% of those offices.

Conclusion - Not many women candidates for the election.

In all if there are 100 seats in the office. In all if there are 100 man and 100 women are competing in all for these seats
Now by the premises there should be 50 men and 50 women in the office. Because both have the same likely hood of winning.

To undermine this statement We have to show that there are not much women candidates who are competing the election.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion given?

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection. We are not concerned with proportion of reelected candidates in last election. Out of Scope

(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women. OUT OF SCOPE

(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices. OUT OF SCOPE

(D) The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women. Just restating the statement of the argument. irrelevant

(E) Many more women than men who want to run for state and national offices do not because they cannot get adequate funding for their campaigns. It show the reason that why there are less women candidates in the election because they don't get the adequate funding. IN SCOPE
Join the discussion

by g000fy » Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:20 am
Yep, its E

Dismiss A because it talks about re-election
Join the discussion