Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 0907:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway- Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
22 Jul 2026, 01:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi nandini14,
Good instinct to pressure-test the runner-up, since (A) does mention prices and can look relevant at first glance.
Start with what the argument actually needs us to judge. The conclusion is forward-looking: "it is likely that the level of overall sales of cereal will rise significantly"because wholesale prices are being cut by 20%. So a useful answer must tell us something about whether that price cut will translate into higher sales.
Now read (A) carefully: "Whether the high marketing expenses ... led to the increase in cereal prices." Notice the tense and direction. (A) is asking about the cause of the past price increase - why prices went up over the last 10 years. But the argument doesn't need us to explain why prices rose earlier; it needs us to test whether the coming cut will boost sales. Knowing the reason prices went up (marketing costs or anything else) tells us nothing about whether lower wholesale prices will actually reach consumers and lift sales.
That's the flaw: (A) is true-but-irrelevant - it explains a past cause instead of testing the conclusion's link.
Could you invent a story for (A)? You'd have to argue "if marketing costs caused the rise, they might rise again and cancel the cut" - but that's a chain the argument never mentions, so you'd be smuggling in an outside scenario. Compare that to (D), which sits directly on the gap the argument leaves open: do the lower wholesale prices reach the shelf?
Quick habit-builder - watch how relevance flips with one change of direction:
- "Whether the price cut will be passed on to shoppers" - tests the future effect. Useful.
- "Whether high costs caused the earlier price rise" - explains the past. Not useful.
Whenever an evaluate question hands you a choice about why something already happened, check it against the conclusion - if the conclusion is a prediction, backward-looking causes usually drop out.
Answer: D
Good instinct to pressure-test the runner-up, since (A) does mention prices and can look relevant at first glance.
Start with what the argument actually needs us to judge. The conclusion is forward-looking: "it is likely that the level of overall sales of cereal will rise significantly"because wholesale prices are being cut by 20%. So a useful answer must tell us something about whether that price cut will translate into higher sales.
Now read (A) carefully: "Whether the high marketing expenses ... led to the increase in cereal prices." Notice the tense and direction. (A) is asking about the cause of the past price increase - why prices went up over the last 10 years. But the argument doesn't need us to explain why prices rose earlier; it needs us to test whether the coming cut will boost sales. Knowing the reason prices went up (marketing costs or anything else) tells us nothing about whether lower wholesale prices will actually reach consumers and lift sales.
That's the flaw: (A) is true-but-irrelevant - it explains a past cause instead of testing the conclusion's link.
Could you invent a story for (A)? You'd have to argue "if marketing costs caused the rise, they might rise again and cancel the cut" - but that's a chain the argument never mentions, so you'd be smuggling in an outside scenario. Compare that to (D), which sits directly on the gap the argument leaves open: do the lower wholesale prices reach the shelf?
Quick habit-builder - watch how relevance flips with one change of direction:
- "Whether the price cut will be passed on to shoppers" - tests the future effect. Useful.
- "Whether high costs caused the earlier price rise" - explains the past. Not useful.
Whenever an evaluate question hands you a choice about why something already happened, check it against the conclusion - if the conclusion is a prediction, backward-looking causes usually drop out.
Answer: D
nandini14
Moderators:
