Last visit was: 22 Apr 2026, 13:45 It is currently 22 Apr 2026, 13:45
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
summer101
Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Last visit: 16 Jun 2014
Posts: 106
Own Kudos:
1,069
 [167]
Given Kudos: 37
Posts: 106
Kudos: 1,069
 [167]
16
Kudos
Add Kudos
149
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
pqhai
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Last visit: 26 Nov 2015
Posts: 864
Own Kudos:
8,939
 [57]
Given Kudos: 123
Location: United States
Posts: 864
Kudos: 8,939
 [57]
45
Kudos
Add Kudos
12
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
ssbisht
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Last visit: 23 May 2013
Posts: 36
Own Kudos:
212
 [20]
Given Kudos: 3
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Posts: 36
Kudos: 212
 [20]
17
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
GowriNK
Joined: 15 Oct 2012
Last visit: 09 May 2013
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
20
 [13]
Posts: 3
Kudos: 20
 [13]
10
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
summer101
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
mbmanoj
Joined: 06 Sep 2012
Last visit: 04 Nov 2013
Posts: 9
Own Kudos:
10
 [4]
Given Kudos: 2
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Sustainability
GPA: 3.11
Posts: 9
Kudos: 10
 [4]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
Amit0507
Joined: 26 May 2013
Last visit: 15 Aug 2016
Posts: 41
Own Kudos:
78
 [1]
Given Kudos: 243
Posts: 41
Kudos: 78
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
Nevernevergiveup
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Last visit: 20 Aug 2023
Posts: 998
Own Kudos:
3,080
 [1]
Given Kudos: 79
Location: India
Products:
Posts: 998
Kudos: 3,080
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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

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.
User avatar
paidlukkha
Joined: 11 Nov 2014
Last visit: 21 Apr 2017
Posts: 248
Own Kudos:
371
 [3]
Given Kudos: 17
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, International Business
WE:Project Management (Telecommunications)
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
avatar
hari1985
Joined: 06 Jul 2015
Last visit: 22 Mar 2019
Posts: 19
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 9
Products:
Posts: 19
Kudos: 12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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 .
User avatar
sayantanc2k
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Last visit: 09 Dec 2022
Posts: 2,391
Own Kudos:
15,571
 [1]
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Expert
Expert reply
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
Posts: 2,391
Kudos: 15,571
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
hari1985
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
sarth90
Joined: 15 Jun 2015
Last visit: 10 Apr 2019
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
Posts: 5
Kudos: 2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
abrakadabra21
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Last visit: 10 Nov 2017
Posts: 243
Own Kudos:
223
 [1]
Given Kudos: 342
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Posts: 243
Kudos: 223
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sarth90
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.
User avatar
umg
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 18 Jun 2016
Last visit: 26 Jun 2020
Posts: 214
Own Kudos:
680
 [1]
Given Kudos: 111
Location: United States (NY)
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 4
WE:General Management (Other)
Products:
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
Posts: 214
Kudos: 680
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sarth90
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.
User avatar
Adit_
Joined: 04 Jun 2024
Last visit: 22 Apr 2026
Posts: 680
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 115
Posts: 680
Kudos: 220
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja Bunuel KarishmaB How does E support any explanation IMO it undermines both the explanations
The 100-calorie pack is not being picked in either of the two cases either by conveniency (when comparable sizes are met it suffers) or by looking substantial for dieters (even then they pick the larger one)
summer101
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.
User avatar
guddo
Joined: 25 May 2021
Last visit: 22 Apr 2026
Posts: 1,012
Own Kudos:
11,313
 [1]
Given Kudos: 32
Posts: 1,012
Kudos: 11,313
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Adit_
GMATNinja Bunuel KarishmaB How does E support any explanation IMO it undermines both the explanations
The 100-calorie pack is not being picked in either of the two cases either by conveniency (when comparable sizes are met it suffers) or by looking substantial for dieters (even then they pick the larger one)

I suppose, E matters because it changes only one thing: the comparison context.

Convenience story says people are “relatively unconcerned with their subjective impression of the small packs.” If that were true, putting the 100 calorie pack next to the bigger one should not suddenly make it sell badly, because the convenience (no measuring) is unchanged. So E is bad for convenience.

“Substantial enough” story says the 100 calorie pack sells when it still feels substantial. E fits that: when the bigger pack is right beside it, the 100 calorie pack no longer looks substantial by comparison, so dieters who need something that feels like a real portion stop buying it. So E supports the “substantial-feel” mechanism (it’s about perception), even though it shows the effect is relative, not absolute.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
499 posts
358 posts