12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: A comparison of

Kinshook

Major Poster

Joined: 03 Jun 2019

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 5,985

Own Kudos:

5,855

[1]

Given Kudos: 163

Location: India

Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34 Verified score

WE:Engineering (Transportation)

Products:

Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34 Verified score

Posts: 5,985

Kudos: 5,855

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 02:36

Kudos

Bookmarks

A comparison of Norvia and Estera reveals a sharp contrast in household energy use.

In Norvia, where prices are market-driven and highly regulated, households have used less energy over the past decade despite rising incomes.

In Estera, where residential energy is heavily subsidised, household consumption has steadily increase.

Analysts suggest that Norvians respond more to price signals, while Estera's subsidies may have discouraged conservation.

Objective: Find the inference

Pre-thinking:
In Norvia, consumers have to pay market price for energy consumption whereas in Estera, consumers are getting subsidy and there is no significant incentives to save energy. We can conclude that energy prices or costing structures play a vital role in how energy consumers respond. It is also evident that households want more of subsided energy but want less of market price energy since they have to pay for it in full.

Options:

A. Matches our pre-thinking. Pricing structures may play a significant role in shaping household responses to energy costs. Correct

B. It can not be inferred from the argument that energy per capita consumption of household decreased. Incorrect

C. This is prediction about the future that energy consumption would likely return to pre-decline levels and that can not be inferred from the passage. Incorrect

D. This is extreme statement which can not be inferred from the argument. There may be other factors responsible for Estera's increase in household energy use. Incorrect

E. The argument is mainly concerned with energy price structures and subsidies and their impact on household energy consumption. While this may be true, but it can not be inferred from the argument. Incorrect

IMO A

harishg

Joined: 18 Dec 2018

Last visit: 09 Apr 2026

Posts: 176

Own Kudos:

174

Given Kudos: 31

GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V84 DI81 Verified score

Products:

GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V84 DI81 Verified score

Posts: 176

Kudos: 174

26 Dec 2025, 02:46

Kudos

Bookmarks

We are looking at a reasonable inference from the passage.

A - We know that pricing structures play a role in energy consumption patterns, but whether it plays a significant role is beyond the scope of the argument.

B - It is indeed true that energy per household has reduced despite rising incomes in Norvia. It can also be said therefore that economic growth did not necessarily lead to more energy usage. This is our answer.

C - We cannot say what the outcome would be if subsidies were implemented in Estera. It is beyond scope of the argument.

D - Subsidy policy is one of the factors which affect consumption, but argument does not mention that it is the only factor.

E - We do not know if pricing patterns are the only factor or one among factors which affect the consumption patterns. This is also beyond scope.

Therefore, Option B

adityamntr

Joined: 15 Jul 2023

Last visit: 21 Feb 2026

Posts: 111

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 13

Location: India

Concentration: General Management, Strategy

Schools: Booth '27 Fuqua '27 Kellog '27

Posts: 111

Kudos: 81

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 02:51

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

A) pricing structures of both citues are compared, the above statement does show the inference about the hosueholde responses to energy costs. This is correct
B) cannot infer anythin about economic growth from this para
C)we can't be sure of that. hence can't be inferred
D)not enough info to infer this
E)not enough infro to infer this

Gmat860sanskar

Joined: 05 May 2023

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 210

Own Kudos:

111

[1]

Given Kudos: 78

Schools: ISB '26

GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q82 V78 DI80 Verified score

Products:

Schools: ISB '26

GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q82 V78 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 210

Kudos: 111

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 04:01

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Stimulus :

Norvia energy use declined because it's market driven, however Estera energy increased because there energy is heavily subsidized

Prethinking : Here argument shows comparison between two demography energy use pattern

Options:

A: Matches our pre-thinking ---Hold

B : This statement is true but this narrow and just focus on one demography --- Incorrect

C: This option is speculative --- Incorrect

D: This one is too strong --- Incorrect

E : This could be true but argument focus is on comparison --- Incorrect

Ans - A

truedelulu

Joined: 01 Sep 2025

Last visit: 24 Jan 2026

Posts: 81

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 16

Products:

Posts: 81

Kudos: 70

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 04:08

Kudos

Bookmarks

Summary: Norvia and Estera have contrasting pattern. In Norvia, prices are market-driven, households used less energy despite rising incomes. In Estera, energy is subsidized, household consumption increased. Hence analysts suggest that Norvians respond more to price signals, while Estera's subsidizes backfire.

A. CORRECT. Evidence suggest that pricing structures in two countries may play a significant role in shaping households' behaviour in energy consumption.
B. Incorrect. This is the fact that already mentioned in the paragraph.
C. Incorrect. The subsidizes can have different effect and this cannot ensure the energy consumption will return to pre-decline levels.
D. Incorrect. This is too strong and unsupported. The paragraphs doesnt mention other factors in Estera.
E. Incorrect. This can be true, but it can't be imply from the paragraph about other factors.

Bunuel

kapoora10

Joined: 13 Jul 2024

Last visit: 12 Apr 2026

Posts: 109

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 7

Location: India

Concentration: Real Estate, Sustainability

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q88 V74 DI84 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 655 Q85 V83 DI80 Verified score

GPA: 8.03

WE:Corporate Finance (Finance: Investment Management)

Products:

GMAT Focus 2: 655 Q85 V83 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 109

Kudos: 95

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 04:11

Kudos

Bookmarks

Lets assess each option one by one =>

A=> Exactly what the comparison + analyst suggestion supports. keep for now.
B=> More restatement on Norvia's than a broader inference. Eliminate.
C=> Speculation. Eliminate.
D=> Claims only one factor is responsible. Eliminate.
E=> This is out of focus and introduction of other factors is out of scope. Eliminate.

Answer => A

arnab24

Joined: 16 Jan 2024

Last visit: 25 Feb 2026

Posts: 96

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 7

Location: India

Schools: ISB '26

GPA: 8.80

Products:

Schools: ISB '26

Posts: 96

Kudos: 81

26 Dec 2025, 04:11

Kudos

Bookmarks

This is an inference based question. Let's look at the options:

(A) It's incorrect and a trap one. It says pricing structures may play a significant role in shaping household responses to energy costs. While this holds true for Norvia , we can't say for Estera as analysts pointing it towards household responses towards consumption.
(B) It's incorrect. We can't comment about per capita and economy.
(C) It's incorrect as we can't comment whether one factor can similarly play into other situation.
(D) It's incorrect and can't comment whether subsidiary was the only factor.
(E) Yes it's correct and it's saying that energy pricing appears to influence but it may not be sole factor. May modifier is very important in this question.

So E is the correct answer

Bunuel

rianaamy

Joined: 18 Aug 2016

Last visit: 06 Apr 2026

Posts: 52

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 20

Location: Bangladesh

Posts: 52

Kudos: 32

26 Dec 2025, 05:04

Kudos

Bookmarks

Correct A as the information matches the question

B per capital can't be inferred

C we dont if other factors are involved

D we dont if other factors are involved

E we dont if other factors are involved

rahumangal

Joined: 20 Nov 2022

Last visit: 07 Apr 2026

Posts: 71

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 316

Location: India

Concentration: Finance, Real Estate

GPA: 3.99

WE:Engineering (Technology)

Products:

Posts: 71

Kudos: 66

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 05:06

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Type of question-Must be true type
A-Yes we can definitely say this, since from the arguement we can see that enegy consumption in norvia varies differently than the consumption in esteria as price changes, since one has price regulated by market and other has it subsidized, meaning having different pricing strategy and so different reaction to varaitions consumption relative to price fluctuations,as its stated in this option- Correct
B-we have no idea how consumption varies with economic growth from the passage- Out of scope
C-Considering the example of esteria we can expect similar consumption strategy in norvia if energy is subsidized, we cannot be sure of it as nothing of that sort can be found in the arguement or can be extrapolated from it otherwise- Out of scope
D-We cannot say if other factors has any effect or not, nothing of that sort is mentioned in the argument-Out of scope
E-Same as above-Out of scope

Reon

Joined: 16 Sep 2025

Last visit: 28 Mar 2026

Posts: 134

Own Kudos:

121

[1]

Given Kudos: 4

Posts: 134

Kudos: 121

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 06:15

Kudos

Bookmarks

A comparison of Norvia and Estera reveals a sharp contrast in household energy use. In Norvia, where prices are market-driven and lightly regulated, households have used less energy over the past decade despite rising incomes. In Estera, where residential energy is heavily subsidized, household consumption has steadily increased. Analysts suggest that Norvians respond more to price signals, while Estera’s subsidies may have discouraged conservation.

Which of the following can be most reasonably inferred from the information above?

A. The contrasting energy consumption patterns in Norvia and Estera suggest that pricing structures may play a significant role in shaping household responses to energy costs.(This can be directly inferred from the comparison made in the argument. Where the prices are higher and market-driven, the consumption is less and where the prices are heavily subsidized, the consumption is more. Hence it can be inferred that pricing structure may play a significant role in household responses to energy costs) Correct

B. Despite rising incomes in Norvia, energy consumption per capita has declined, indicating that economic growth alone does not necessarily lead to increased energy use.(This shifts the focus on economic growth and also this doesn't talk about estera) Wrong

C. If Norvia were to implement residential energy subsidies similar to Estera’s, energy consumption would likely return to pre-decline levels.(This is more like a prediction and not an inference) Wrong

D. Estera’s increase in household energy use cannot be attributed to factors other than its subsidy policy.(The argument doesn't say that subsidy is the only cause, there are also other possibilities. This is too strong to be correct) Wrong

E. While energy pricing appears to influence household consumption patterns, it may not be the sole factor driving differences in energy use between Norvia and Estera.(This introduces a new uncertainty which is a big red flag) Wrong

redandme21

Joined: 14 Dec 2025

Last visit: 05 Jan 2026

Posts: 97

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 97

Kudos: 87

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 07:06

Kudos

Bookmarks

A Correct. Analysts suggest that there's a correlation between type of pricing (market vs subsidized) and trend in usage (down vs up).

B The inference is okay, but it isn't the most reasonably because it doesn't talk about Estera's energy consumption patterns. A is better.

C This is a strong prediction beyond the evidence.

D This is too strong ("cannot"). The passage doesn't rule out other factors.

E The passage doesn't hint at other factors, so inferring "may not be the sole factor" is wrong.

IMO A

forestmayank

Joined: 05 Nov 2025

Last visit: 31 Mar 2026

Posts: 103

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 6

Posts: 103

Kudos: 87

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 07:07

Kudos

Bookmarks

From the paragraph:
Market driven energy prices, increased income, decreased energy consumption in Norvia
Subsidized energy, high consumption in Estera
Suggestion for the trend - Norvian response is price sensitive, Estera subsidies have discouraged conservation.

Options:
A. Pricing plays significant role in energy consumption patterns. Can be inferred since market driven prices resulted in lower consumption even with rising income whereas subsidized energy resulted in higher consumption. Best option.
B. Option does not explain the difference in pricing and excludes Estera from the conclusion which showcased a contrasting pattern due to a certain factor. Hence no.
C. What could happen if something was done is a prediction based on the current pattern seen in the two places and not an inference. Hence no.
D. We cannot say for sure. Several other factors could be at play resulting in higher usage, say increased winter days or anything similar that would result in higher demand. Hence no.
E. From the given statement, we cannot say for sure whether there are other factors or not at play. Hence no.

Hence, Best answer Option A

geocircle

Joined: 14 Dec 2025

Last visit: 27 Dec 2025

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 07:29

Kudos

Bookmarks

A Right answer. It's a reasonable inference. It's a "modest" version of what the analysts suggest: "Norvians respond to price signals, Estera's subsidies discouraged conservation".

B This states something as a general principle, while the passage only gives one example. Not as good as A.

C The passage doesn't give any information about what would happen under a hypothetical policy switch.

D Analysts only say subsidies may have discouraged conservation. They don't negate additional influences.

E This goes beyond what's implied in the text. The passage doesn't suggest other factors.

Answer A

topgmat25

Joined: 15 Dec 2025

Last visit: 05 Jan 2026

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 07:49

Kudos

Bookmarks

A This is a reasonable inference because it suggests that pricing structures (market-driven vs subsidized) influence energy consumption patterns. Correct answer.

B This is a plausible inference given the information, but it isn't the most direct conclusion. Less directly supported by the passage compared A.

C This is speculative and cannot be reasonably inferred from the information provided.

D The passage suggests that Estera's subsidies may have discouraged conservation, but it doesn't exclude the possibility that other factors could have contributed too.

E The passage focuses on the pricing mechanism, but it does not claim that pricing is the only factor involved. Less directly supported by the passage compared A.

The answer is A

bhanu29

Joined: 02 Oct 2024

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 358

Own Kudos:

267

[1]

Given Kudos: 262

Location: India

Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27

GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q87 V85 DI79 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86 Verified score

GPA: 9.11

WE:Engineering (Technology)

Products:

Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27

GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86 Verified score

Posts: 358

Kudos: 267

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 07:54

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel