Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 11:42 It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 11:42
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   
805+ (Hard)|   Strengthen|   Weaken|         
User avatar
AviNFC
User avatar
Joined: 31 May 2023
Last visit: 09 Aug 2026
Posts: 365
Own Kudos:
421
 [1]
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 365
Kudos: 421
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 14 Jul 2026, 12:56
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches. While this may support the substantial portion, convenience is not weakened.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product. Alternative reasoning for the higher sale

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack. This supports substantial part & not undermine the convenience part.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger. This somewhat supports the substantial part.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded. Correct. When packet doesn't appear substantial, sales fall. Thus supports substantial portion. Now, even though packet is of 100 calorie, still not sold, undermining the convenience portion.

Ans E
User avatar
Rishm
User avatar
Joined: 05 May 2024
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 370
Own Kudos:
78
 [1]
Given Kudos: 82
Location: India
Schools: Johnson '27 LBS '27 IESE '27
GPA: 10
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Schools: Johnson '27 LBS '27 IESE '27
Posts: 370
Kudos: 78
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 14 Jul 2026, 14:14
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A-- It supports one, but does not hurt the other part.
B--It gives another explanation, reject.
C--Concerns appetite reduction, but not on packaging
D--Convience is not undermined, and only 1 is supported.
E--It supports substantial portion while undermining the convenience explanation. Hence E is correct according to me.
User avatar
SmileAndSolve
User avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2024
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 80
Own Kudos:
52
Given Kudos: 329
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 4
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 80
Kudos: 52
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 14 Jul 2026, 14:58
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Reason 1 = convenience
Reason 2 = healthy portion
Ans should have yes for 1 & no for another

A) NO -> convenience = Yes, healthy portion = not addressed + rapidly growing segment vague
B) YES -> convenience = Yes, healthy portion = no, purely convenience
C) NO-> convenience = no , healthy portion = yes
D) NO-> irrelevant (doesn't talk 100 cal vs traditional)
E) NO -> irrelevant


Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 100-calorie pack, at least in the case of snacks for which it has sold well, represents the smallest portion that still looks and feels “substantial” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more
User avatar
Gmatcatexpert
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2025
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 2
Given Kudos: 3
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 14 Jul 2026, 16:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
d is the best answer it is undermining the second explanantion as most people eat it bcz it looks enough for them whereas company is just putting air into them to make it look fuller
User avatar
priyanka06
User avatar
Joined: 10 Sep 2025
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 60
Own Kudos:
36
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 60
Kudos: 36
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 14 Jul 2026, 17:56
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A:- it supports one explanation but does not mention anything related to second explanation
B:- it introduces completely new, third explanation, hence not relevant
C:- the information is irrelevant as it is not related to any of the 2 explanations
D: it supports 1 explanation but does talk about the first explanation mentioned in the passage
E:- Right answer, it supports the second explanation related to look & feel and disregards the first explanation about convenience .

Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 100-calorie pack, at least in the case of snacks for which it has sold well, represents the smallest portion that still looks and feels “substantial” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more
User avatar
jefferyillman
User avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2024
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 112
Own Kudos:
81
 [1]
Given Kudos: 3
Posts: 112
Kudos: 81
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 14 Jul 2026, 18:12
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. Do not undermine any of the agrument.
B. Has nothing to do with argument. Introduces shelf life which doesn't add anything to the convenience explanation.
C. Feeling full is different than reduction of appetite.
D. Packages contain air to appear larger. This supports the looks substantial explanation but doesn't undermine the convenience argument.

E. Nuts sell poorly as 100 calorie packs because 100 calories is only 10-12 nuts, which does not look substantial. This supports the substantial portion explanation since if the serving looks small than the product does not sell well. It also undermines the convenience explanation because if the packages of 100 calories offered the same convenience than they should sell as well as all the other 100 calories products.
User avatar
yashsharma1
User avatar
Joined: 18 Apr 2025
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 76
Own Kudos:
49
 [1]
Given Kudos: 26
Location: India
Schools: IESE '26 (WL)
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q81 V82 DI83
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Schools: IESE '26 (WL)
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q81 V82 DI83
Posts: 76
Kudos: 49
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 14 Jul 2026, 20:55
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Stem analysis: The sales of 100-calorie packs and traditional pack sizes have been almost the same for many snack companies. This has happened even after the per-ounce price of a 100-calorie pack was 2x to 4x the per-ounce price of traditional packs. Why? 2 possible explanations:
1. People do not want the hassle of portioning and hence are ready to pay a premium for pre-portioned packs (100-calorie pre packed, ready to consume)
2. People think that the 100-calorie pack still has a 'substantial' quantity because it look/feels more than it actually is.

We need to find an explanation from the answer choices which supports one explanation and undermines the other.

A. This tells us who the buyers of the products are. Parents may buy the 100-cal product due to either of the above reasons. Not useful for us.
B. Shelf life or longevity was not a consideration in either of the above explanations. We can thus ignore this one as well.
C. Again, how filling the pack size is, is not a deciding factor in either of the explanations. We are comparing ease of portioning vs quantity perception as reasons.
D. This looked very tempting. If there is air, the packs will look bigger. Hence people might be buying because of perception that the quantity is substantial. But they might still be looking at the ease of portioning and paying a premium to buy the 100 cal packs. Even if there is air filled, the portion sizes are still 100 cals which saves the buyer the trouble of portioning. IMO this can still support either of the explanations.

E. Best option IMO. The nuts packs are still 100-cal packages but they look very small. If portioning was the major consideration for buyers, the sale of these products would still be comparably high as other products. But they look small and hence the perception that they contain 'substantial' quantity is not there. Hence the drop in sales. This statement undermines the first explanation and supports the second. Hence CORRECT ANSWER.
User avatar
alamin8
User avatar
Joined: 24 May 2025
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 183
Own Kudos:
79
 [1]
Given Kudos: 32
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Accounting, Technology
Schools: HEC Sept '27 INSEAD Aug '27 UNC '27
GPA: 3.89
Schools: HEC Sept '27 INSEAD Aug '27 UNC '27
Posts: 183
Kudos: 79
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 14 Jul 2026, 21:48
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This is my thought.

E is the answer because one way it supports the explanation, i.e., the sale of 100-calorie nuts has been quite poor due to not looking substantial compared to other 100-calorie stuffs, on the other side, it undermines the explanation, i.e., although it is convenient to take away and also individually packaged, it is not selling great. Therefore, only convenience cannot prove that there would be more sales.

(A) It just talks about convenience, i.e, supporting the argument. There is no way to undermine it. Eliminate.
(B) Therefore, the sales will be higher as the shelf life is 1-2 years due to convenient prepackaged product. There are not any weakener. Eliminate.
(C) Out of scope. There is no talking about whether appetite reduction can be a good reason for eating those compared to traditional one. Eliminate.
(D) It does not tell whether protective nature of prepackaged would help more sales. Eliminate.

Answer is E.
User avatar
SwethaReddyL
User avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2023
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 186
Own Kudos:
37
 [1]
Given Kudos: 271
Location: India
Posts: 186
Kudos: 37
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 14 Jul 2026, 21:57
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
the correct option should be E and here is why

there are two explanations given and those are 1) convenience 2) the feeling of substantial. The correct option should strengthen one and weaken the other or vise versa

A - this focuses just on convenience. we don't know anything about substantial - out
B - this talks about shelf life and is totally out of scope - out
C - this is the opposite of A, talks about substantial and we know nothing about convenience - out
D - again out of scope - doesn't talk about either explanations
E - this talks about both the explanations and strengthens the convenience one and weakens the substantial one - here is our answer

Option E

thanks,
Swetha
Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 100-calorie pack, at least in the case of snacks for which it has sold well, represents the smallest portion that still looks and feels “substantial” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more
User avatar
GamePine
User avatar
Joined: 31 May 2026
Last visit: 04 Aug 2026
Posts: 61
Own Kudos:
55
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q79 V85 DI82
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q79 V85 DI82
Posts: 61
Kudos: 55
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 14 Jul 2026, 23:17
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
There are two explanations given to us in the passage. First is that people pay a premium so they don't have to portion food. The other is that the 100 calorie pack is the smallest back that still feels substantial. We want to find a statement that supports one explanation and weakens the other.

A doesn't necessarily strengthen or weaken either argument. You could make the assumption that parents would want smaller packs for their children, but even then it doesn't weaken the explanation that they don't want to portion out the snacks.

For B, a longer shelf life is not relevant to portioning or the 100 calorie size being small but substantial. This is inncorrect.

C supports the small, but substantial explanation, but doesn't weaken the convenience explanation. Since people feel as full 30 min after eating the 100 calorie portion as the full portion it supports that the smaller bag is satisfying despite being smaller than the normal amount, but the convinient portioning of the snack is not mentioned.

For D, manufactures adding air to protect the snacks does not address the convience of portioning or the 100 calorie package being the smallest sufficient size. You could maybe talk about how the package appearing bigger might trick a customer into think that it is a satisfying amount, but the statement still doesn't address the convience explanation.

E is the correct answer. If 100 calories of nuts is only 10 to 12 nuts, it would not feel substantial which supports the small, but satisfying explanation given that they sold worse than other 100 calorie snacks. This statement also weakens the portioning convience explanation because even though there aren't that many nuts, based on the convience explanation, the customers should be willing to pay the premium to not portion it out themselves, but the statement shows that the 100 calorie nuts are performing worse than other snacks.
User avatar
vasu1104
User avatar
Joined: 10 Feb 2023
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 731
Own Kudos:
422
 [1]
Given Kudos: 672
Location: Canada
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 731
Kudos: 422
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 14 Jul 2026, 23:22
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
there are traditional packages and then there are pre packaged 100 calorie packets.
now this pre packaged 100 calorie packets generated nearly as much total revenue as from sales of traditional packages.
although the prices of these pre packaged 100 calories were 2-4 times as much per ounce.
two explanations were given.
first, convenience. customers are not concerned with the impressions made by the small packets. and they are willing to pay significant premium to avoid making portions on their own.
second, people still found the smallest portion substantial.

A means parents want to avoid making portion on their own so thats why they are buying it. but it doesnt do anything to other explanation. out.
B okay so this brings another factor that could be the reason for higher sales. but we need to find choice that support one reasoning and reject the other reasoning. so this is incorrect. out.
C but did they actually buy or were they given for test. so we cant say which reasoning was correct. out.
D this says why what manufacturers are doing to make it small and why. but thats not the point in here, out.
E this supports the convenience theory but weaken the theory of substantial as the sales have been poor. so this is correct one.

choice E
Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 100-calorie pack, at least in the case of snacks for which it has sold well, represents the smallest portion that still looks and feels “substantial” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more
User avatar
Punt
User avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2024
Last visit: 10 Aug 2026
Posts: 96
Own Kudos:
77
Given Kudos: 18
Location: India
Posts: 96
Kudos: 77
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 14 Jul 2026, 23:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The two explanations:
1. Consumers are willing to pay premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions.
2. It represents smallest portion that still looks & feels "substantial" to the person who consumes it.

We need to find teh answer choice which support one explanation & undermines the second, means provides the differentiation among these explanation.

A - Doesn't distinguish between the above two. It just provide the preference of a segment & its usage.
B - Self life is out of scope of the two explanation.
C - It supports the second explanation but doesn't indicate anything about the first one.
D - yes, it undermines the first one as package size & measuring size has nothing to do with it the measuring efforts. And supports the second one as making it look bigger seems "substantial".
E - It supports the second explanation but doesn't indicate anything about teh first one.

Answer: D

Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 100-calorie pack, at least in the case of snacks for which it has sold well, represents the smallest portion that still looks and feels “substantial” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more
User avatar
Kinshook
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Jun 2019
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 6,129
Own Kudos:
6,089
 [1]
Given Kudos: 164
Location: India
Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
WE:Engineering (Transportation)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
Posts: 6,129
Kudos: 6,089
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 14 Jul 2026, 23:36
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks?

One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions.

Another possible explanation is that the 100-calorie pack, at least in the case of snacks for which it has sold well, represents the smallest portion that still looks and feels “substantial” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.
Parents may find 1000-calorie pack convenient to provide adequate meal to their children. This supports one explanation but does not undermine other possible explanation since there is no mention that children consuming them are not feeling the meal substantial.
Incorrect

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.
The argument is not concerned with shelf life of 100-calorie pack. That may increase convenience in using it. There is no mention that the consumers consuming them do not feel substantial.
Incorrect

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.
This mentions that consumers feel that 100-calorie pack is as substantial as traditional sized packs of the same snack. This does not mention that 100-calorie packs are not convenient.
Incorrect

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.
This statement may support feeling substantial explanation since sealing air into the packages may feel substantial to consumers eating them but does not undermine convenience explanation.
Incorrect

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.
100-calories packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews are definitely convenient to use but consumers eating them may find such packs containing only ten to twelve nuts on average as NOT substantial. This support one explanation (convenience) while undermines another (feeling substantial)
Correct

IMO E
User avatar
ajain31
User avatar
Joined: 09 Nov 2024
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 70
Own Kudos:
57
 [1]
Given Kudos: 68
Location: United Kingdom
Schools: Wharton '27 Stanford '27 HBS '27 CBS '27
GPA: 71%
Schools: Wharton '27 Stanford '27 HBS '27 CBS '27
Posts: 70
Kudos: 57
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 00:16
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
There are two explanations here:

Convenience explanation and the substantial portion explanation.

A could support both as it convenient for parents to put in kids lunches as they know what they are putting in and also as they are kids it could be substantial enough for their kids - eliminate

B Irrelevant, talks about shelf life which is not releated to either explanations here, more for the seller of the packs - reject

C This somewhat looks tempting, but the people its talking about in the study seem to be who are looking to curb their appetitie, potentially for weight loss, so the 100 calorie packs could be convenient way as they know what they are eating and also "substantial" enough for them - reject

D - seems tempting as adding air makes packs appear larger, but it doesn't undermine either conclusion, as consumers could still primarily vale convenience while manufacturer happen to make packages look larger - reject

E - gives actual sales evidence showing that when the portion does not look substantial the convenience benefit is insufficient - correct keep
User avatar
remdelectus
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2025
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 120
Own Kudos:
112
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 120
Kudos: 112
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 01:43
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A-incorrect: this focuses on a specific demographic but does not differentiate between convenient and appearance.
B-incorrect: here they introduce third alternate explanation, rather than supporting one of the two given options and also weakening the other.
C-incorrect: this is concerned with the reduction of appetite, not why the consumers purchase the parks.
D-incorrect: Explains how manufacturers try to make packages look bigger but not provide consumer data that strengthens one hypothesis.
E-correct: this presents a scenario where a 100 calorie pack contains only ten to twelve nuts, and these packs sell very poorly.
User avatar
canopyinthecity
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2025
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 159
Own Kudos:
106
 [1]
Given Kudos: 25
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 159
Kudos: 106
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 01:47
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) Not helps to explain the question
(B) explains a different reason altogether- not relevant to 2 explanations we need to support/undermine
(C) and (D) supports 2nd explanation slightly and not undermine 1st
(E) supports 1st explanation as nuts example shows it is low probably because it is not inconvenient to measure nuts compared to other packs. It also undermines 2nd explanation because 10-12 nuts might not look and feel substantial.

(E) is the answer
User avatar
chasing725
User avatar
Joined: 22 Jun 2025
Last visit: 16 Aug 2026
Posts: 241
Own Kudos:
235
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6
Location: United States (OR)
Schools: Stanford
Schools: Stanford
Posts: 241
Kudos: 235
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 02:40
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 100-calorie pack, at least in the case of snacks for which it has sold well, represents the smallest portion that still looks and feels “substantial” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more


A. Supports the convenience idea, but doesn't really hurt the "substantial portion" idea.

B. Offers another possible reason (shelf life), which is not included in the two explanations.

C. Doesn’t clearly support one of the ideas over the other.

D. If anything, it supports the "looks substantial" idea, but doesn't hurt convenience too much.

E. True. Nuts are very calorie dense so that a 100 calorie pack contains a couple of nuts and doesn't seem to be much. The low sales indicate that users want a portion that feels substantial supporting the second explanation.

I think the answer to this is Option E
User avatar
PulkitSaran
User avatar
Joined: 10 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Aug 2026
Posts: 34
Own Kudos:
28
 [1]
Given Kudos: 437
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 34
Kudos: 28
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 03:25
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 100-calorie pack, at least in the case of snacks for which it has sold well, represents the smallest portion that still looks and feels “substantial” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more

A. Incorrect. This gives a reason why the sales of 100-calorie packs have increased, but does not strengthen/weaken either of the explanations.

B. Incorrect. Like A, this gives a reason why people prefer 100-calorie packs, but does not strengthen/weaken either of the explanations.

C. Incorrect. This does not strengthen/weaken either of the explanations.

D. Incorrect. This supports both explanations.

E. Correct. This undermines the convenience theory since if people preferred convenience, sales of packs for nuts would have risen like other packs. This supports the other theory since consumers prefer not to buy it because the quantity does not look substantial.
User avatar
FlushLoop
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2026
Last visit: 06 Aug 2026
Posts: 62
Own Kudos:
57
 [1]
Posts: 62
Kudos: 57
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 03:38
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 100-calorie pack, at least in the case of snacks for which it has sold well, represents the smallest portion that still looks and feels “substantial” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more
A. This thing is really convenient because it makes packing packages a lot easier. That is not the only reason. The other reasons are still important too. This thing does not make them less important.

B. This gives us another reason, which is that things last longer but it does not say anything about the other two reasons we talked about.

C. This does not tell us why people like to buy things in packages.

D. This says that bigger packages are better because they have food and that is true but it does not mean that convenience is not important. Packaging is still important, for convenience.

E. It is true that nuts are easy to pack. People do not like the small 100-calorie nut packages because they do not think they have enough food in them. So people really care about how food they get. This makes us think that the convenience argument is not as strong as we thought. The convenience of packaging is not the thing that matters the size of the serving matters too and people care about the size of the serving when they buy nuts and other food.

Will go with Option E as my answer.
User avatar
GreenPill
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jun 2026
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 37
Own Kudos:
25
 [1]
Products:
Forum Quiz
Posts: 37
Kudos: 25
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 03:39
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 100-calorie pack, at least in the case of snacks for which it has sold well, represents the smallest portion that still looks and feels “substantial” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more
explanation 1 -> it is more convenient
exp 2 -> portion is small but looks and makes you feel full
option A - supports convenience but does not comment on quantity. option B - it is better to store but nothing about other support.
option C - nothing about exp 1. option D - it looks large so makes you feel full and can be stored longer, does not undermine.
option E - undermines exp 2 as more calorie food but quantity is less and other 100-calorie food packs are in demand due to exp1.
so , option E
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts