Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 17:20 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 17:20
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
Sajjad1994
User avatar
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 17,289
Own Kudos:
49,290
 [32]
Given Kudos: 6,179
GPA: 3.62
Products:
Posts: 17,289
Kudos: 49,290
 [32]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
28
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Catman
Joined: 03 Aug 2017
Last visit: 12 Feb 2025
Posts: 320
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 219
Products:
Posts: 320
Kudos: 328
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
ktzsikka
Joined: 28 Apr 2021
Last visit: 27 Mar 2025
Posts: 151
Own Kudos:
416
 [1]
Given Kudos: 125
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Energy)
Posts: 151
Kudos: 416
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
akash2703
Joined: 13 Mar 2018
Last visit: 21 Apr 2024
Posts: 62
Own Kudos:
98
 [3]
Given Kudos: 37
Location: United States (CA)
GPA: 3.78
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Products:
Posts: 62
Kudos: 98
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
1. For each of the following statements, select Weaken if the statement would weaken the claim in the Vice President's proposal. Otherwise select Not Weaken.


A. The grocery chain's wholesale costs are currently well above market value.
[Weaken]
This statement is weakening the fact that the raise in the supplier cost by 5% over already high prices may lead to the whole sale price to be more than the market price in long run.


B. The market price of wholesale groceries will not decrease at some point during the next ten years.
[Not Weaken]
Strengthening the claim of the VP as it shows that the overall increase of the wholesale price is inevitable.


C. The rate of increase in the wholesale costs of vegetables is consistent with the average rate of increase in wholesale costs for all grocery products.
[Not Weaken]
Again strengthening the claim of the VP as it shows that the overall increase of the wholesale price is inevitable.


2. Consider each of the following statements. Does the information provided support the inference as stated?

A. In 1995, the grocery store chain paid 25% more for wholesale groceries than it did in 1990.
IMO Yes
Because from 1990 each year the price increased by 5% as per the new agreement and the overall % is around 27%

B. For each year from 1990 to 1995, the wholesale market price of groceries increased by 5%.
IMO No
The overall increase is given as 25%. Can't really say about the each year's increase.


C. From 1990 to 1992, the prices the grocery chain paid for wholesale groceries increased by more than 10%.
IMO Yes

In 1991 - Grocery chain paid 5% more
In 1992 - Again paid 5% more
Overall increase - 10.25%


3. The market price of groceries in 1990 was what fractional part of the market price of groceries in 2000?

IMO B

Lets Say In 1990 the market price is - x
In 1995 increased by 25% - 5/4 x
In 2000 again increased by 25% as compared to 1995 - (5/4) (5/4) x = 25/16 x

The ratio is - x/(25/16)x = 16/25 = B
avatar
800gal
Joined: 12 Jun 2021
Last visit: 06 Oct 2023
Posts: 19
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 16
Location: India
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ANSWERS :
W- WEAKEN NW- NOT WEAKEN
1. W, NW, NW
2. YES, NO, NO
3. B


QUESTION 1: For each of the following statements, select Weaken if the statement would weaken the claim in the Vice President's proposal. Otherwise select Not Weaken.

Since this is Critical Reasoning question, Let’s Map out the Conclusion and Premises.

P1 :In recent years, we've seen the prices from our wholesale suppliers increase sharply.
P2 :The current wholesale prices we pay per ounce for vegetables, for instance, is double the price per ounce we paid five years ago.
P3 :We are proud to announce that we have reached a new agreement with our suppliers to keep this price increase under control.
P4 :Over the next ten years, our suppliers will only increase prices by 5% per year.

CONCLUSION/ CLAIM:Thus, this agreement will ensure that, in the long term, our wholesale costs will stay below market price.

The VICE PRESIDENT assumes that the WHOLESALE PRICES will remain under MARKET PRICES due to the price increase being kept under control by their suppliers (5% increase)

A weakening statement will throw this assumption to question.

A. The grocery chain's wholesale costs are currently well above market value. W

If this is true and the MARKET PRICES are higher to begin with, then the WHOLESALE price increase being kept under control will not ensure that the WHOLESALE PRICES stay under the MARKET PRICES.

If the market prices stay stagnant, the wholesale prices will only keep increases.
If the markets increase alongside the wholesales at a similar rate, the market price will remain lower than wholesale price.

The only case where this wouldn’t weaken the argument would be if the market prices plummet to the wholesale values and decrease. However we have no information about the rate of change of market prices. Also we have two instances where the WHOLESALE prices don’t stay under market prices.

Therefore this is the WEAKENER choice.


B. The market price of wholesale groceries will not decrease at some point during the next ten years. NW

This doesn’t weaken the answer at all. If the market price won’t decrease at some point, then (given that the market price is higher than current wholesale value), the price increase limitations by the suppliers will ensure that the wholesale prices stays under market prices. This is actually a STRENGTHENING CHOICE

C. The rate of increase in the wholesale costs of vegetables is consistent with the average rate of increase in wholesale costs for all grocery products. NW

This neither weakens nor strengthens the conclusion. In fact it has not effect on the conclusion because it doesn’t relative market and wholesale prices at all. How wholesale prices of vegetables and wholesale prices of other grocery products relate is IRRELEVANT to the argument.



QUESTION 2. Consider each of the following statements. Does the information provided support the inference as stated?

In an inference question, everything stated in the passage/stem is taken as true/fact. Therefore the correct answer choices MUST BE TRUE. Any MAYBE’s or FALSE’s must be marked wrong.

In 1995, the market wholesale price of all grocery products had increased by 25% from what it had been in 1990. In 2000, market wholesale price had increased by an additional 25% from what it had been in 1995. From 1995 to 2000, the market wholesale price increased by the same percent each year.

A. In 1995, the grocery store chain paid 25% more for wholesale groceries than it did in 1990. YES

YES, given TAB 2, It is clearly stated that prices of 1995 were 25% more than prices of 1990.


B. For each year from 1990 to 1995, the wholesale market price of groceries increased by 5%. NO

“From 1995 to 2000, the market wholesale price increased by the same percent each year.”

We know that prices of 2000 = 125% of prices of 1995

We also know that for each year from 1995 - 2000 the prices increased by the same percent each year.

If the prices of 1995 is taken a 100$ then we know that the price of 2000 is 125$

If the prices increased by 5% each year from 1995 - 2000 the price changes would be

100$
105$,
110.25$
115.7625$
121.550625$
127.628156$ ==> the final price of 2000 which is NOT 125$

This is not an inference supported by the the passage.

C. From 1990 to 1992, the prices the grocery chain paid for wholesale groceries increased by more than 10%. NO

All we know is that from 1990 to 1995 there was a 25% increase. We do not know whether the percentage increase per year was the same amount or whether the jump to 25% happened over the five years or just in the last interval. This is Beyond the scope of the passage and hence cannot be inferred logically.



QUESTION 3. The market price of groceries in 1990 was what fractional part of the market price of groceries in 2000?

STRAIGHT UP PROBLEM SOLVING

$(YEAR 2000) = 125% of 125% of $(YEAR 1990)
($(YEAR 2000)*100*100) / (125*125) = $(YEAR 1990)

[$(YEAR 2000)] * (16/25) = $(YEAR 1990)

A. 1/2
B. 16/25 CORRECT
C. 2/3

D. 3/2

E. 5/4
User avatar
yashikaaggarwal
User avatar
Senior Moderator - Masters Forum
Joined: 19 Jan 2020
Last visit: 17 Jul 2025
Posts: 3,086
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,510
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE:Analyst (Internet and New Media)
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Question 1:

1. The grocery chain's wholesale costs are currently well above market value. (if the wholesale price is already above the market price and the next 5% increase will be there for the next 10 years, the cost will be over the market price, hence this weakens the vice president's claim) (Weaken)

2. The market price of wholesale groceries will not decrease at some point during the next ten years. (According to VP plan of keeping the price under control, if the price of the wholesale vegetables don't decrease, the price will fluctuate as per the plan of VP) (Not Weaken)

3. The rate of increase in the wholesale costs of vegetables is consistent with the average rate of increase in wholesale costs for all grocery products. (if the increase in price is consistent, and the VP's plan of increasing the price of vegetables stays intact, VP's plan will eventually keep the price under control) (Not Weaken)

Question 2:

1. In 1995, the grocery store chain paid 25% more for wholesale groceries than it did in 1990. (True, it is given in the statement, "In 1995, the market wholesale price of all grocery products had increased by 25% from what it had been in 1990.")

2. For each year from 1990 to 1995, the wholesale market price of groceries increased by 5%. (False, No given information testifies this)

3. From 1990 to 1992, the prices the grocery chain paid for wholesale groceries increased by more than 10%. (False, No given information testifies this)

Question 3:
Let the price be 100 in 1990
Change in price from 1990 to 1995 = 25%
Change in price from 1995 to 2000 = 25%
Price in 2000 = 156.25
Therefore,
The ratio will be 100/156.25 = 16/25
Answer is B
User avatar
Sajjad1994
User avatar
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 17,289
Own Kudos:
49,290
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6,179
GPA: 3.62
Products:
Posts: 17,289
Kudos: 49,290
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Official Explanation

1. For each of the following statements, select Weaken if the statement would weaken the claim in the Vice President's proposal. Otherwise select Not Weaken.

The grocery chain's wholesale costs are currently well above market value.

The author concludes that this deal will keep the grocery chain's wholesale costs well below market price. This is based on the premise that food prices have increased sharply and this deal would have prices increase at a set rate. The assumption in any plan argument is that there are no problems with the plan, and, therefore, to weaken this argument, you will need to find a problem with the plan.

This statement indicates that the wholesale costs are already well above market value. If this is the case, then even though the cost increase is contained, the costs are not below market value as the author concludes. This statement, therefore, does weaken the argument.

Answer: Weaken

The market price of wholesale groceries will not decrease at some point during the next ten years.

The author concludes that this deal will keep the grocery chain's wholesale costs well below market price. This is based on the premise that food prices have increased sharply and this deal would have prices increase at a set rate. The assumption in any plan argument is that there are no problems with the plan, and, therefore, to weaken this argument, you will need to find a problem with the plan.

This statement could strengthen the argument, since it rules out a potential problem with the plan. If the market price does decrease, then the set increase could keep the wholesale costs above market value. Therefore, this statement does not weaken the argument.

Answer: Not Weaken

The rate of increase in the wholesale costs of vegetables is consistent with the average rate of increase in wholesale costs for all grocery products.

The author concludes that this deal will keep the grocery chain's wholesale costs well below market price. This is based on the premise that food prices have increased sharply and this deal would have prices increase at a set rate. The assumption in any plan argument is that there are no problems with the plan, and, therefore, to weaken this argument, you will need to find a problem with the plan.

This statement could strengthen the argument, since it also rules out a potential problem with the plan. If the rate of increase in the cost of vegetables were not consistent with other grocery products, then it could be that this is an anomaly and the other products could have a more manageable increase or even no increase in price. Therefore, this statement does not weaken the argument.

Answer: Not Weaken

2. Consider each of the following statements. Does the information provided support the inference as stated?

In 1995, the grocery store chain paid 25% more for wholesale groceries than it did in 1990.

This statement could appear to be true for two reasons. The 'Market Prices' tab indicates that market prices increased by 25%, but the grocery chain is paying a set increase that is independent of market prices. Also, since there is a 5% increase in the grocery chain's wholesale costs each year for five years, it could appear that this is a 25% increase. However, during each new year, the 5% increase applies to the already increased price. For example, if the price were to be $100 and it were to increase by 5%, then the price would be $105. Another 5% increase is 5% of $105, which is $5.25, making the new price $110.25. This price is more than a 10% overall increase. This pattern will continue for all five years. Therefore, the overall increase would actually be greater than 25%. This statement, therefore, cannot be inferred.

Answer: No

For each year from 1990 to 1995, the wholesale market price of groceries increased by 5%.

You know that the market price increased by 25% over the five year period. You know that there was a consistent year by year increase from 1995 to 2000. However, you do not know that this was the case from 1990 to 1995 and, therefore, cannot infer this statement.

Answer: No

From 1990 to 1992, the prices the grocery chain paid for wholesale groceries increased by more than 10%.

This statement could appear false, since a 5% increase per year could appear to be a 10% increase over two years. However, during each new year, the 5% increase applies to the already increased price. You can plug in $100 for the prices. A price increase of 5% in 1991 would bring the price to $105. Another 5% increase in 1992 is 5% of $105, which is $5.25, making the new price $110.25. This price is more than a 10% overall increase. Therefore, this statement can be inferred.

Answer: Yes

3. The market price of groceries in 1990 was what fractional part of the market price of groceries in 2000?

You see fractions in the answer choices, so this is a hidden plug in. Since the information you're given is about percents, you would usually want to plug in $100. However, since you want two increases of 25%, which is \(\frac{1}{4}\), you want a number with two factors of 4, so try $400 instead. A 25% increase from 1990 to 1995 is an increase of \(\frac{25}{100}*400= 100\), which brings the price up to $500. Another 25% increase from 1995 to 2000 is an increase of \(\frac{25}{100}*500= 125\), bringing the price up to $625. This fraction is \(\frac{400}{625}\), which reduces to \(\frac{80}{125}=\frac{16}{25}.\)

Answer: B
User avatar
crimson_noise
Joined: 14 May 2024
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 29
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 5
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q80 V85 DI77
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q80 V85 DI77
Posts: 29
Kudos: 6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Isn't question 2A supposed to be true as per information in Tab2?
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,355
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 99,964
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,355
Kudos: 778,072
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
crimson_noise
Isn't question 2A supposed to be true as per information in Tab2?
Statement 2A says “In 1995, the grocery store chain paid 25% more for wholesale groceries than it did in 1990.”

But the Vice President’s proposal (Tab 1) only says that from 1990 onward, their costs would rise by 5% per year under the new agreement. That means in 1995 their cost would be 1.05^5 = 1.276 times the 1990 price, about 27.6% higher, not 25%.

So 2A is close but not exactly true; it’s not supported by the information because the 25% figure refers to the market, not the chain’s agreed-upon increase.
User avatar
LittleKKKKK
Joined: 21 Jan 2025
Last visit: 09 Nov 2025
Posts: 2
Given Kudos: 8
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
According to the sentence "Over the next ten years, our suppliers will only increase prices by 5% per year," and based on the context in the proposal tab, should we interpret the 5% as a maximum limit—meaning the annual increase could be less than 5%—or should we interpret it as a fixed increase rate, regardless of circumstances?
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,355
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 99,964
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,355
Kudos: 778,072
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
LittleKKKKK
According to the sentence "Over the next ten years, our suppliers will only increase prices by 5% per year," and based on the context in the proposal tab, should we interpret the 5% as a maximum limit—meaning the annual increase could be less than 5%—or should we interpret it as a fixed increase rate, regardless of circumstances?
It means a fixed 5% yearly increase, not a maximum limit.
Moderators:
Math Expert
105355 posts
496 posts