Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 15:37 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 15:37

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
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Posts: 106
Own Kudos [?]: 974 [143]
Given Kudos: 37
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 871
Own Kudos [?]: 8553 [53]
Given Kudos: 123
Location: United States
Send PM
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Posts: 36
Own Kudos [?]: 199 [16]
Given Kudos: 3
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Send PM
General Discussion
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Oct 2012
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 20 [13]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
10
Kudos
3
Bookmarks
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. :)
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Sep 2012
Posts: 9
Own Kudos [?]: 9 [4]
Given Kudos: 2
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Sustainability
GPA: 3.11
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
4
Kudos
Please correct me....
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
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 30 Jun 2014
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
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....
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 May 2013
Posts: 42
Own Kudos [?]: 70 [1]
Given Kudos: 243
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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.
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 01 Jul 2014
Posts: 7
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT Date: 08-05-2014
GPA: 2.8
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
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: 1015
Own Kudos [?]: 2754 [0]
Given Kudos: 79
Location: India
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
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
Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 72
Own Kudos [?]: 50 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
WE:Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
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!!!
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Nov 2014
Posts: 263
Own Kudos [?]: 328 [3]
Given Kudos: 17
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, International Business
WE:Project Management (Telecommunications)
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
3
Kudos
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?


Sent from my iPad
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Jul 2015
Posts: 19
Own Kudos [?]: 11 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
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 .
CR Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2413
Own Kudos [?]: 15266 [1]
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
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.)
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Jun 2015
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
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
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 261
Own Kudos [?]: 170 [1]
Given Kudos: 342
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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.
Current Student
Joined: 18 Jun 2016
Posts: 221
Own Kudos [?]: 613 [1]
Given Kudos: 111
Location: United States (NY)
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 4
WE:General Management (Other)
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 05 May 2019
Posts: 166
Own Kudos [?]: 289 [1]
Given Kudos: 222
GPA: 3
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
1
Kudos
There's a Video explanation by Ron for this Question. To those of you who have a problem with this type of CR Questions, Ron's also mentioned a great strategy to quickly solve this. The video's over here -

START @ around 38:00
Intern
Intern
Joined: 22 Aug 2020
Posts: 16
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 98
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
I think E just supports the second assumption, and didn't undermine the first one.

Is it because there are only two explanations, so supporting one will inevitably undermine another?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Aug 2021
Posts: 374
Own Kudos [?]: 35 [0]
Given Kudos: 226
Send PM
The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
Hello expert,
I can’t understand how E support any explanation.
As it says Sales of 100-calorie packs are poor than those of traditional sized portion when they are put together, I think this means large sized portion sell better cuz people don’t think 100c packs are substantial enough when compared to the traditional sized pack, so they choose the larger one. But I don’t know how it supports the second explanation?
While, for convenience, as the two portions of snack are displayed together (the same convenience), but the traditional sized sell better, so I think it should undermine the first explanation.
Hope to get your enlightenment, and thanks in advance.
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17206
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: The snack food market has recently seen an explosion in the production [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne