Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
25 Dec 2025, 09:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
71% (02:00) correct
29%
(02:19)
wrong
based on 257
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A comparison of Norvia and Estera reveals a sharp contrast in household energy use. In Norvia, where prices are market-driven and lightly regulated, households have used less energy over the past decade despite rising incomes. In Estera, where residential energy is heavily subsidized, household consumption has steadily increased. Analysts suggest that Norvians respond more to price signals, while Estera’s subsidies may have discouraged conservation.
Which of the following can be most reasonably inferred from the information above?
A. The contrasting energy consumption patterns in Norvia and Estera suggest that pricing structures may play a significant role in shaping household responses to energy costs.
B. Despite rising incomes in Norvia, energy consumption per capita has declined, indicating that economic growth alone does not necessarily lead to increased energy use.
C. If Norvia were to implement residential energy subsidies similar to Estera’s, energy consumption would likely return to pre-decline levels.
D. Estera’s increase in household energy use cannot be attributed to factors other than its subsidy policy.
E. While energy pricing appears to influence household consumption patterns, it may not be the sole factor driving differences in energy use between Norvia and Estera.
Which of the following can be most reasonably inferred from the information above?
A. The contrasting energy consumption patterns in Norvia and Estera suggest that pricing structures may play a significant role in shaping household responses to energy costs.
B. Despite rising incomes in Norvia, energy consumption per capita has declined, indicating that economic growth alone does not necessarily lead to increased energy use.
C. If Norvia were to implement residential energy subsidies similar to Estera’s, energy consumption would likely return to pre-decline levels.
D. Estera’s increase in household energy use cannot be attributed to factors other than its subsidy policy.
E. While energy pricing appears to influence household consumption patterns, it may not be the sole factor driving differences in energy use between Norvia and Estera.
12 Days of Christmas Competition
This question is part of our holiday event
Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more
V40-23
25 Dec 2025, 10:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
GMAT Club Official Explanation:
The passage compares Norvia and Estera and shows a clear contrast. In Norvia, where energy prices are market-based, people have actually used less energy over the past decade, even though their incomes went up. In Estera, where the government subsidizes residential energy, people are using more energy. Analysts suggest this might be because Norvians respond more to price, while Estera’s subsidies reduced the incentive to save energy.
So the whole thing is really pointing to this idea that pricing structures might influence how much energy households use.
Now to the options:
A is a direct summary of what the passage is showing. It says pricing structures may play a significant role in shaping household responses to energy costs. That’s exactly what the data shows, and the analysts suggest it too. It’s careful in tone, doesn’t overstate anything, and it stays within what we’re told. This is the right answer.
B is tempting because it talks about how energy use went down in Norvia despite income going up. That’s true based on the passage, but the second part makes it sound like this is some general rule about economic growth and energy use. We only have data from one country, so we can’t jump to that conclusion. It goes a bit beyond the scope.
C is a prediction. It says that if Norvia had Estera-like subsidies, energy use would probably go back up. That might be true in real life, but the passage doesn’t give us any info to support that specific outcome. GMAT inference questions don’t want us to guess what might happen.
D makes a very strong claim. It says Estera’s increased energy use cannot be due to anything besides subsidies. But the passage never rules out other causes. The analysts just say subsidies may have discouraged conservation. That’s not the same as saying it’s the only explanation. So this one’s too extreme.
E sounds balanced and smart, but it’s another classic trap. It says energy pricing might not be the only reason for the difference. In real life that’s probably true, but the passage never talks about any other factor. So this introduces something new that we can’t back up with the passage. Too cautious, and not supported.
General Discussion
Bunuel
Imo, A. Firstly let's categorize, its Inference. I don't usually prefer to pre-think in Inference/Conclusion Type questions.
A - seems most relevant and well summarises the Author's POV.
B - Economic growth, we don't have any idea about this. Author has just provided 2 pointers that incomes are rising we can't conclude anything about Economic growth. Plus, Energy consumption per capita we don't know about this too, we just know that household energy consumption has decreased.
C - We can't guess/conclude what can happen if Norvia introduces subsidies.
D - This is not something we can infer, its an assumption by the author tbh.
E - Again, Irrelevant. Its a sole factor or some random just another factor we can't conclude.
