GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 16 Jun 2019, 22:13

### 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

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

# The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Posts: 122
The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 26 Nov 2018, 07:32
11
53
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

37% (03:00) correct 63% (03:09) wrong based on 2379 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production and sales of "100- Calorie packs," individually wrapped portions of snack foods sized to provide exactly 100 calories per portion. These packs cost substantially more per ounce-they sell for nearly same price as traditionally sized portions, which are typically two to three times their size - but consumers have been purchasing them with greater and greater frequency. One possible explanation is convenience: Consumers may be relatively unconcerned with their subjective impression of the small packs, and willing to pay more to avoid having to measure out their portions. Another possible explanation is that 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" enough to appeal to dieters who lack the self control to limit their consumption of snacks from larger packages.

Which of the following, if true, would support one of the given explanation and undermine the other?

A. Consumers are willing to pay exactly the same price for 100-calorie packs sold in vending machine as for traditionally sized snack portions sold in vending machine.

B. A large number of buyers of 100-calorie packs consume them as light desserts after large meals that have left them feeling too full for traditionally sized snack food.

C. Although the 100-calorie packs have begun to sell well across a large variety of demographics, busy young professionals were the first group to purchase them frequently.

D. Because the 100-calorie packs require more packaging per ounce of food than the traditionally sized portions do, manufacturers must charge more per ounce to make the same relative profit as on traditionally sized portions.

E. Sales of 100-calorie packs have been uniformly poor at stores where they are displayed alongside traditionally sized portions, even for the same snacks whose 100-calorie packs are bestsellers at other stores.

_________________
Please give Kudos if you like the post

Originally posted by summer101 on 06 May 2013, 07:03.
Last edited by Bunuel on 26 Nov 2018, 07:32, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1006
Location: United States
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 May 2013, 17:49
34
7
Very tricky question, IMO E is correct.

Fact: 100Calories packs cost more per ounce-than traditionally sized portions.
Fact: Consumers have been purchasing 100Calories pack with greater and greater frequency.

Explanation 1: Consumers are willing to pay more to avoid having to measure out their portions. ==> convenience is 1st priority.

Explanation 2: 100Calories pack represents the smallest portion that still looks and feels "substantial" enough to appeal to dieters who lack the self control to limit their consumption of snacks from larger packages. ==> Because 100C pack is large enough so even if it stands alone, it still attracts dieters. However, if 100c pack stands beside a LARGER sized portion, dieters will ignore the smaller one and pick up the bigger one.

A. Consumers are willing to pay exactly the same price for 100-calorie packs sold in vending machine as for traditionally sized snack portions sold in vending machine.
Wrong. Out of scope.

B. A large number of buyers of 100-calorie packs consume them as light desserts after large meals that have left them feeling too full for traditionally sized snack food.
Wrong. Out of scope.

C. Although the 100-calorie packs have begun to sell well across a large variety of demographics, busy young professionals were the first group to purchase them frequently.
Wrong. Good shell game. It maybe fits the first explanation, but It's wrong because "the first group to purchase" does not mean busy young professionals will keep their habit. They are just the group of people who always try "NEW stuffs" more frequently than other group of people.

D. Because the 100-calorie packs require more packaging per ounce of food than the traditionally sized portions do, manufacturers must charge more per ounce to make the same relative profit as on traditionally sized portions.
Wrong. Out of scope.

E. Sales of 100-calorie packs have been uniformly poor at stores where they are displayed alongside traditionally sized portions, even for the same snacks whose 100-calorie packs are bestsellers at other stores.
Correct. Because 100C pack is large enough so even if it stands alone, it still attracts dieters. ==> If 100c pack stands beside LARGER sized portion, dieters will ignore 100c pack. ==> E also undermines the 2nd explanation because if convenience is priority, customers should ignore the large sized portions to pick up the smaller sized packs.

Hope it's clear.
_________________
Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.
##### General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 15 Oct 2012
Posts: 3
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 05:31
6
2
summer101 wrote:
The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production and sales of "100- Calorie packs," individually wrapped portions of snack foods sized to provide exactly 100 calories per portion. These packs cost substantially more per ounce-they sell for nearly same price as traditionally sized portions, which are typically two to three times their size - but consumers have been purchasing them with greater and greater frequency. One possible explanation is convenience: Consumers may be relatively unconcerned with their subjective impression of the small packs, and willing to pay more to avoid having to measure out their portions. Another possible explanation is that 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" enough to appeal to dieters who lack the self control to limit their consumption of snacks from larger packages.
Which of the following, if true, would support one of the given explanation and undermine the other?
A. Consumers are willing to pay exactly the same price for 100-calorie packs sold in vending machine as for traditionally sized snack portions sold in vending machine.
B. A large number of buyers of 100-calorie packs consume them as light desserts after large meals that have left them feeling too full for traditionally sized snack food.
C. Although the 100-calorie packs have begun to sell well across a large variety of demographics, busy young professionals were the first group to purchase them frequently.
D. Because the 100-calorie packs require more packaging per ounce of food than the traditionally sized portions do, manufacturers must charge more per ounce to make the same relative profit as on traditionally sized portions.
E. Sales of 100-calorie packs have been uniformly poor at stores where they are displayed alongside traditionally sized portions, even for the same snacks whose 100-calorie packs are bestsellers at other stores.

I am lost!! Help with reasoning will be highly appreciated

Interesting question! Let's examine the argument first:
Observation: Though HCPs cost more per ounce than traditional snack packs, they are selling really well.
Reasoning 1: Consumers are probably willing to pay more to avoid measuring out their portions, and are relatively unconcerned about the size of the pack
Reasoning 2: HCPs represent the smallest snack pack sizes that look and feel 'substantial' enough to appeal to dieters without self-control
We need to pick out the answer choice that supports one of the 2 explanations and undermines the other.

A: This is a very specific case - HCPs sold in vending machines versus traditional packs sold in vending machines. Be very wary of such 'too narrow' answer choices. This does not fit our bill.
B: When such foods are consumed - does not help us.
C: This supports Reasoning 1 to some extent - busy professionals may not want the hassle of measuring out their portions. But this does not undermine Reasoning 2.
D: This is an explanation for why the companies that manufacture HCPs must charge more - does not help to strengthen/weaken the 2 explanations.
E: Correct. This choice has a clear connect to the appearance of HCPs, a point mentioned in Reasoning 2. It strengthens Reasoning 2 because it tells us that people may, in fact, be influenced by the 'substantial' feel of the HCPs. By themselves, the HCPs may have looked substantial, but next to traditional snack packs, they would look smaller. This is in line with Reasoning 2. This choice also undermines Reasoning 1: if consumers are willing to pay more to avoid measuring out their portions, this should be the case wherever the HCPs are displayed. But the sales of HCPs is poor when they are displayed next to traditional packs.
Hope this is clear now.
Intern
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Posts: 40
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 06:17
12
1
Analysis of argument:
1. Fast rise in production and sales of "100- Calorie packs” which provides exactly 100 calories per portion.
2. 100- Calorie packs costs more and sells for nearly same price as traditionally sized portions which are 2-3 times 100- Calorie packs.
3. First explanation of the rise in sales of "100- Calorie packs”: Consumers unconcerned with impression of the small packs and willing to pay more to avoid having to measure out their portions.
4. Another explanation of the rise in sales of "100- Calorie packs”: At least in the case of snacks for which it has sold well, the 100- calorie pack still looks and feels "substantial" enough to appeal to dieters who lack the self control to limit their consumption of snacks from larger packages.

Pre thinking:
The production of 100- Calorie packs is increasing despite of its high cost of production to the producer while selling at same price as traditional product. So producer must be able to sell large number of these to get more aggregate profit even though profit per unit is less. This becomes irrelevant because we are looking for consumer behavior and not production behavior.
The Sales of 100- Calorie is also on rise despite the fact that it sells for nearly same price as traditionally sized portions which are 2-3 times 100- Calorie packs.
So the consumers are using it increasingly and the only major difference from traditional product s is that the 100- Calorie packs which provides exactly 100 calories per portion.
So the reason for increase must be around the exact 100 calories per portion per portion which it provides.

The first explanation says that consumer is using it more often to avoid measuring out their portions. So the consumer is too busy to measure the portion they eat and can’t eat more than 100 calories.

The second explanation relies on the reason that it is getting popular because of dieters who lack self control and hence chooses 100- calorie pack to limit their consumption.

A. Consumers are willing to pay exactly the same price for 100-calorie packs sold in vending machine as for traditionally sized snack portions sold in vending machine.
Incorrect: This is not supporting or undermining the argument but repeating the fact given in passage.

B. A large number of buyers of 100-calorie packs consume them as light desserts after large meals that have left them feeling too full for traditionally sized snack food.
Incorrect: Not related to any of the explanations. The explanations rely on either not wanting to measure or on dieters without self control.
C. Although the 100-calorie packs have begun to sell well across a large variety of demographics, busy young professionals were the first group to purchase them frequently.
Incorrect: Supports the first explanation but doesn’t undermine the second one as it doesn’t say anything about dieters.
D. Because the 100-calorie packs require more packaging per ounce of food than the traditionally sized portions do, manufacturers must charge more per ounce to make the same relative profit as on traditionally sized portions.

E. Sales of 100-calorie packs have been uniformly poor at stores where they are displayed alongside traditionally sized portions, even for the same snacks whose 100-calorie packs are bestsellers at other stores.
Correct
The sales have been uniformly poor at stores where they are displayed alongside traditionally sized portions shows that a big section people lack self control and will go for larger sized portion if displayed together. The second explanation talks about this behavior and hence is supported by this answer choice.

It also undermines the first explanation which says that consumer is using it more often to avoid measuring out their portions. Had that been the reason the sales of 100-calorie packs wouldn’t have gone down when displayed with traditional packs.

_________________
Intern
Joined: 06 Sep 2012
Posts: 10
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Sustainability
GPA: 3.11
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2013, 20:29
3
I have different understanding

"represents the smallest portion that still looks and feels "substantial" enough to appeal to dieters who lack the self control to limit their consumption of snacks from larger packages."

It clearly states that dieters want to go for small packs and limit consumption of larger ones.
D.) small packs are not sold as high as large ones, if both are placed together. This donot undermine the explanation of quoted text as dieters would still prefer smaller ones(because they cannot control eating and same time want to limit their eating).
So, D is not the answer.

Even wague , B successfully eliminates the explanation that peopl go for small packs for convenience. If a larger number of consumer take small packs because they are already full after heavy meal, the second explanation is supported and first is undermnined
Intern
Joined: 30 Jun 2014
Posts: 1
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2014, 05:39
I think E is supporting the first explanation and undermining the second.
Explanation 1 says convenience is the reason and people are unconcerned about the relative size...and this is endorsed by the choice because if people are concerned of the size they would have not chosen bigger packs when placed near small 100 calorie packs.
Explanation 2 says dieters are concerned about controlling the quantity they eat so they prefer the small sized packs but the choice says the sales of big packs are increased when the shop has big packs so it undermines the fact that dieters are concerned about controlling the eating....
Manager
Joined: 26 May 2013
Posts: 52
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2014, 17:43
1
Option E need not directly strengthen the second reasoning. If we can undermine the first reasoning and display with an evidence that consumers lack self control at stores where larger packs are placed beside 100cal packs then we actually strengthens Reasoning-2.
Intern
Joined: 01 Jul 2014
Posts: 8
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT Date: 08-05-2014
GPA: 2.8
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2014, 06:51
Tricky question indeed.

There are 2 conclusions, and the question stem asks us to support one and weaken the other.

A. Consumers are willing to pay exactly the same price for 100-calorie packs sold in vending machine as for traditionally sized snack portions sold in vending machine.

The passages states that consumers are purchasing the large pack, even though they are costly, how customers make the payment is not discusses

B. A large number of buyers of 100-calorie packs consume them as light desserts after large meals that have left them feeling too full for traditionally sized snack food.

Passage does not state anything about the consumption.

C. Although the 100-calorie packs have begun to sell well across a large variety of demographics, busy young professionals were the first group to purchase them frequently.

Out of scope
D. Because the 100-calorie packs require more packaging per ounce of food than the traditionally sized portions do, manufacturers must charge more per ounce to make the same relative profit as on traditionally sized portions.

Again out of scope

E. Sales of 100-calorie packs have been uniformly poor at stores where they are displayed alongside traditionally sized portions, even for the same snacks whose 100-calorie packs are bestsellers at other stores.

This one maintains consistency while strengthening one conclusion and undermining the other.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1102
Location: India
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2015, 07:10
The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production and sales of "100- Calorie packs," individually wrapped portions of snack foods sized to provide exactly 100 calories per portion.

These packs cost substantially more as they sell for nearly same price as traditionally big sized portions but consumers have been purchasing them more.

• One possible explanation is convenience: Consumers may be relatively unconcerned with their subjective impression of the small packs, and willing to pay more to avoid having to measure out their portions.
• Another possible explanation is that 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" enough to appeal to dieters who lack the self control to limit their consumption of snacks from larger packages.

Which of the following, if true, would support one of the given explanation and undermine the other?

A. Consumers are willing to pay exactly the same price for 100-calorie packs sold in vending machine as for traditionally sized snack portions sold in vending machine.
This is already mentioned and does not affect any reason.

B. A large number of buyers of 100-calorie packs consume them as light desserts after large meals that have left them feeling too full for traditionally sized snack food.
This presents a different reason different from above two reasons. OFS

C. Although the 100-calorie packs have begun to sell well across a large variety of demographics, busy young professionals were the first group to purchase them frequently.
We are bothered about reasons not who are the purchasers and both the reasons specify dieting or measuring aspect but this indicates professional lifestyle as the reason.

D. Because the 100-calorie packs require more packaging per ounce of food than the traditionally sized portions do, manufacturers must charge more per ounce to make the same relative profit as on traditionally sized portions.
(This presents a different reason from manufacturer's point of view as in B. OFS)

E. Sales of 100-calorie packs have been uniformly poor at stores where they are displayed alongside traditionally sized portions, even for the same snacks whose 100-calorie packs are bestsellers at other stores.

I could not explain why E is correct and chose C falling into the trap. But pqhai nails it.

pqhai wrote:

Correct. Because 100C pack is large enough so even if it stands alone, it still attracts dieters. ==> If 100c pack stands beside LARGER sized portion, dieters will ignore 100c pack. ==> E also undermines the 2nd explanation because if convenience is priority, customers should ignore the large sized portions to pick up the smaller sized packs.

Tricky question indeed.
Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 70
WE: Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2015, 19:36
E. Sales of 100-calorie packs have been uniformly poor at stores where they are displayed alongside traditionally sized portions, even for the same snacks whose 100-calorie packs are best sellers at other stores.

Case1: store has both packs side by side. So X goes in and see both and as per E ,X picks larger one

reason 1- not valid

rason 2- valid because X does not have self control ( really!!!)

Case 2: Store has only 100 calorie pack. So X goes in and pick 100 pack.

Reason 1- Holds good else X should have got the other one

Reason 2 – I feel it holds good either. It can be a reason to avoid the big packet.

Confused!!!
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Nov 2014
Posts: 324
Location: India
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2016, 13:18
3
Fact: 100Calories packs cost more per ounce-than traditionally sized portions.
Fact: Consumers have been purchasing 100Calories pack with greater and greater frequency.

Explanation 1: Consumers are willing to pay more to avoid having to measure out their portions. ==> convenience is 1st priority.

Explanation 2: 100Calories pack represents the smallest portion that still looks and feels "substantial" enough to appeal to dieters who lack the self control to limit their consumption of snacks from larger packages. ==> Because 100C pack is large enough so even if it stands alone, it still attracts dieters. However, if 100c pack stands beside a LARGER sized portion, dieters will ignore the smaller one and pick up the bigger one.

B?

Intern
Joined: 06 Jul 2015
Posts: 23
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2016, 13:36
C ) In several studies , subjects who ate a 100 – calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite , after 30 minutes , as those who traditionally sized portion of the same snack .
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2871
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2016, 14:54
1
hari1985 wrote:
C ) In several studies , subjects who ate a 100 – calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite , after 30 minutes , as those who traditionally sized portion of the same snack .

The correct answer choice should support one of the explanations and oppose the other. The two explanations are:
1. Convenience of not having to measure.
2. Appealing look and feel of the pack.

Now do you think C could be correct?

(not revealing answer choice or explanation before the scheduled date of publishing of answer.)
Intern
Joined: 15 Jun 2015
Posts: 8
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2016, 11:11
B is talking about the sales of just one type of food items. How can we make a judgement based on such a narrow sample. It might be the case that some other food item has dense nutrients and less less qty but still sales are high. so it should be C

Sent from my A0001 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 345
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2016, 07:39
1
sarth90 wrote:
B is talking about the sales of just one type of food items. How can we make a judgement based on such a narrow sample. It might be the case that some other food item has dense nutrients and less less qty but still sales are high. so it should be C

Sent from my A0001 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Let's say there are two hypothesis A & B. As a scientist, you know that either A is true, or B true. Both can not be true. Now you have to check which one is wrong, and which one right.

what will you do. You will keep checking it till you get wrong result for one of it. Once you find it, you know that other one is true.
Now consumers either by these packets

1. Convenience : - measurement convenience
2. will power. You know you want to lose weight but you don't have will power so what will you do. Size look substantial but calory wise it's good.

Now what B does it gives you to reject the reason 1st. if it is convenience than 100 calorie pack sales of nuts would be good. but they are not doing good. And it strengthen the idea it is weight effect. bcoz nuts are healthy so people buy all kind of packets for that. ("substantial" effect doesn't matter in this case) and that is why they are not selling as much as people in this case wants more and not less.
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Jun 2016
Posts: 261
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 4
WE: General Management (Other)
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2017, 08:14
1
sarth90 wrote:
B is talking about the sales of just one type of food items. How can we make a judgement based on such a narrow sample. It might be the case that some other food item has dense nutrients and less less qty but still sales are high. so it should be C

Sent from my A0001 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Question wants us to pick an option that undermines 1 explanation and supports the other one. B is supporting Exp 2 and undermining Exp 1.

1. Convenience - Because people buy the new snack rather than just 10 to 12 nuts to fulfill 100C quota, they are not concerned about the convenience.

2. Even if B talks about only 1 type of food item, it is correct because of 2 major reasons..

a) Every other option is going on a tangent. They are nowhere close to the desired answer.
b) Since we do not know the ingredients of the snack, we are not bound to make a generalized statement to include every food item. Quite possibly, even the snack contains only 2 or 3 different nuts.
_________________
I'd appreciate learning about the grammatical errors in my posts

Please hit Kudos If my Solution helps

My Debrief for 750 - https://gmatclub.com/forum/from-720-to-750-one-of-the-most-difficult-pleatues-to-overcome-246420.html

My CR notes - https://gmatclub.com/forum/patterns-in-cr-questions-243450.html
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 4598
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2018, 07:25
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production   [#permalink] 26 Nov 2018, 07:25
Display posts from previous: Sort by