Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 08:12 It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 08:12
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   
805+ (Hard)|   Strengthen|   Weaken|         
User avatar
jkkamau
User avatar
Joined: 25 May 2020
Last visit: 03 Sep 2026
Posts: 285
Own Kudos:
244
 [1]
Given Kudos: 147
Location: Kenya
Schools: Jones '26 (A$$)
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V46
GPA: 3.5
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Schools: Jones '26 (A$$)
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V46
Posts: 285
Kudos: 244
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 03:58
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. This suggest a use case but does not undermine either explanation
B. This choice provides a third unnecessary explanation
C. This choice supports both explanations
D. Supports the substantial explanation but does not undermine convenience
E. Clearly undermines convenience as would be expected and yet supports the substantial explanation
Ans E
Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 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” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more
User avatar
Amity007
User avatar
Joined: 12 Sep 2025
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 266
Own Kudos:
493
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,858
Location: India
Schools: ISB
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Schools: ISB
Posts: 266
Kudos: 493
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 04:17
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
result: 100 cal package giving strong revenue performance
Reason 1: Consumers are unconcerned with subjective impressions, they just willing to pay premium to avoid measure and pack their own portion.
Reason 2: it represents the smallest portion which looks and feels substantial to people who consumes it.
we need to find which resolve the question.

A) This doesn't specify if lunch for kids involve exactly 100 cal pack. Irrelevant. Eliminate.
B) This talking about shelf life after opening the package. Again feels out of context. Eliminate.
C) This talks about it 2nd reason that it feels fulfilling as much as full portion but it doesn't relate anything about the first. So eliminate.
D) this talks about looks and feels of 100 cal package, supports reason 2 for sure. but doesn't undermine reason 1. So eliminate.
E) This talks about 100-cal cashews and nuts only contain 10-12nuts (likely to be the smallest), they don't look fulfilling and thats why their sales have been poor. It's negation of reason 2. So supports 2. And undermines the 1st one, coz if the convenience would be preferred then this size would have been sold the most. So this is our answer.

Answer is E.
Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 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” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more
User avatar
twinkle2311
User avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2021
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 211
Own Kudos:
247
 [1]
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
Schools: ISB '27 Wharton '27
GPA: 9.041
Schools: ISB '27 Wharton '27
Posts: 211
Kudos: 247
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 04:30
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
We need something that supports one explanation while weakening the other

A only supports the convenience explanation. Doesn't weaken the other. Eliminate
B also only supports convenience. Eliminate
C doesn't really support either explanation. Eliminate
D only supports the substantial portion explanation. Doesn't weaken convenience. Eliminate
E supports the 2nd explanation. If even convenient 100-calorie packs sell poorly when the portion looks too small, then convenience alone can't explain their success. Keep

Ans : E
User avatar
Manosij010
User avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2026
Last visit: 03 Sep 2026
Posts: 68
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 55
Location: India
Schools: ISB '26 ESADE ESSEC MiM '27 HEC MiM '27 IIM INSEAD MiM '27
GPA: 5.72
Schools: ISB '26 ESADE ESSEC MiM '27 HEC MiM '27 IIM INSEAD MiM '27
Posts: 68
Kudos: 5
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 04:32
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
As this argument imo holds no definite conclusion but an anomaly, any reason that can successfully support or explain why the smaller but more premium packs sell more than traditional packets over the pointers given in the argument, will probably be our choice of answer. Option B is the only option that curtails to ALL 100 calorie packets and gives us a strong incentive of why people will prefer to buy them over traditional packets even at a premium. Longer shelf life is the incentive over here on top of everything mentioned in the argument.

Ans - B
User avatar
TanviNagrani
User avatar
Joined: 31 May 2021
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 40
Own Kudos:
35
Given Kudos: 12
Posts: 40
Kudos: 35
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 05:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The correct answer is E,
as it shows the contradiction in the convenience theory while supporting the substantial appearance explanation.
It demonstrates that high-premium portion control fails when the product lacks visual volume; this weakens the argument that convenience alone drives sales.

The other options A,B,C,D are incorrect because they fail to address both explanations simultaneously.
User avatar
JollyScale
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jul 2026
Last visit: 28 Aug 2026
Posts: 55
Own Kudos:
49
 [1]
Location: India
Schools: HBS '27 CBS '27 Stanford '27
GPA: 6.87/7
WE:Marketing (Finance: Diversified Financial Services)
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Schools: HBS '27 CBS '27 Stanford '27
Posts: 55
Kudos: 49
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 05:34
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
exp 1: ppl buy it for conv. no need to measure or pack

exp 2: ppl buy it because 100 cal still looks like a decent portion

a) supports conv only. doesn't weaken exp 2.

b) gives a new reason.

c) talks about hunger, not appearance.

d) bigger-looking pack supports exp 2, but doesn't weaken conv.

e) 100 cal nut packs have only 10–12 nuts, so they don't look like enough. sales are poor. this supports exp 2 and weakens exp 1, because if conv was the main reason, nut packs should also sell well


ans: e

Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 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” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more
User avatar
kavyamahajan9
User avatar
Joined: 09 Jun 2021
Last visit: 16 Aug 2026
Posts: 44
Own Kudos:
40
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 44
Kudos: 40
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 05:48
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Option E Sales of 100 - calorie pack such as almonds ....
This statement Supports the first explanation like the people find it convenient to buy the pack and then separate them
This statement undermines the other explanation where they are telling that the smallest portion looks and feels substantial to the person , by telling us that the almonds pack also looks small but the sales are relatively poor directly contradicting the statement

Why others are not the sol

A) This statement tells only the positive side of one statement and not the undermining one
B) Longer shelf life is a new detail that is added and not part of the statement and also there is no undermining statement in this
C) this statement is supporting both the statement as they are telling about the convenience and substantial feel to the person so this is not correct
D) This is supporting the substantial feel statement but not undermining the other one so this is not correct
Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 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” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more
User avatar
Reon
User avatar
Joined: 16 Sep 2025
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 294
Own Kudos:
200
 [1]
Given Kudos: 19
GMAT Focus 1: 575 Q78 V78 DI79
GMAT Focus 1: 575 Q78 V78 DI79
Posts: 294
Kudos: 200
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 05:54
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. Only information about convenience.
B. Its about shelf life only.
C. No effect on convenience side of argument.
D. This is irrelevant.
E. Sales of 100 calorie pack nuts are poor whereas sales of other 100 calorie packs have exploded. Nuts packets only have 10-12 nuts in a pack so they don’t look substantial and sell poor. If the reason had been convenience then the sales of nuts have been well. This strengthens the substantial one and weakens convenience one........Correct

E
User avatar
Nsanghavi
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jul 2025
Last visit: 29 Aug 2026
Posts: 59
Own Kudos:
46
Given Kudos: 20
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 59
Kudos: 46
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 06:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In the given question we are required to find out the option which strengthens the argument

Option A - This option is not correct as it only talks about convenience but does not compare it with others
Option B - This option seems false since it only mentions that longer shelf life leads to convenience. Does not describe sustainability
Option C - This option is wrong as it only mentions about convenience.
Option D - This option is correct as it mentions about both
Option E - This option is not correct as it weakens the conclusion

Correct answer is Option D
User avatar
redandme21
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2025
Last visit: 01 Aug 2026
Posts: 157
Own Kudos:
144
 [1]
Posts: 157
Kudos: 144
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 06:40
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A Parents may like the convenience, but this does not rule out the other explanation.

B This gives a different reason for buying the packs, not one of the two choices.

C Feeling equally full says nothing about convenience or appearance.

D Bigger-looking packages support the appearance idea, but convenience could still explain the sales.

E Correct. Nuts are easy to pre-portion, yet the packs sell poorly because the serving looks too small.

IMO E
User avatar
MANASH94
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2025
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 165
Own Kudos:
121
 [1]
Given Kudos: 27
Location: India
Schools: IIM IIM ISB
GMAT Focus 1: 525 Q80 V76 DI72
GPA: 2.9
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Schools: IIM IIM ISB
GMAT Focus 1: 525 Q80 V76 DI72
Posts: 165
Kudos: 121
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 06:42
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Premise Says that the the 100 calorie packs sell good even though the price per ounce is high. There are two explanations given:
1. Convenience in which people pay extra to avoid measuring options.
2. Substantial portions in which people buy them because people the portion size look and feel substantial.
To answer the question we need some evidence that supports one while undermining the other.
Evaluating the options:
A. Parents buying them for lunchboxes supports the convenience but does not address or weaken the substantial portion part. (Incorrect).
B. Longer life span seems to be a new angle to the existing explanations. it doesnt relate to the existing two. (Incorrect).
C. Same reduction in apetite supports substantial part but not the convenience (Incorrect).
D. Bigger packets gives psuedo support to convenience but not the convenience part. (Incorrect).
E. Only 10-12 nuts per packet says that it is not Substantial which attacks the not substantial point directly and they are equally convenient but still sales are low which weakens the convenience part.

I see E as the best option here because I could eliminate A-D.

IMO Ans is E.
Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 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” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more
User avatar
JayBKK
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jan 2025
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 40
Own Kudos:
29
Given Kudos: 41
Location: Thailand
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Economics
Schools: Stanford HBS
GMAT Focus 1: 555 Q82 V77 DI72
GPA: 3.37
WE:Engineering (Technology)
Schools: Stanford HBS
GMAT Focus 1: 555 Q82 V77 DI72
Posts: 40
Kudos: 29
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 06:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Premises
- The price per ounce of the 100-cal package is higher than that of the traditional package.
- The 100-cal package sells at the same price as the traditional package.

Conclusion
1. People are willing to pay for the convenience.
2. People are satisfied with the smallest portion that the 100-cal package gives.

Pre-thinking: the choice should be something that explains people's decision.

A: Parents adopt the 100-cal package. This just supports the premises.
B: Weakening both conclusions.
C: Supports the 2nd conclusion, but does nothing to the first.
D: Seems irrelevant to me.
E: Weakening the 1st. It says the reason that sales increased is not the packaging, but the food itself. But it kind of supports the 2nd, it says that when it sold, it sold to the people who feel this package is enough.

So choice E.
User avatar
geocircle
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2025
Last visit: 27 Jul 2026
Posts: 150
Own Kudos:
143
 [1]
Posts: 150
Kudos: 143
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 07:02
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A This could fit convenience, but it does not challenge the substantial-portion idea.

B Longer shelf life is a separate explanation, not one discussed in the argument.

C This is about hunger, not why people choose the 100-calorie packs.

D Making the packs look bigger helps the substantiality idea, but it does not argue against convenience.

E Right answer. If convenience were the reason, nut packs should also sell well, but they do not because the portions seem too small.

Answer E
User avatar
topgmat25
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2025
Last visit: 27 Jul 2026
Posts: 150
Own Kudos:
139
 [1]
Posts: 150
Kudos: 139
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 07:23
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A Packing lunches may make the packs useful, but it doesn't tell us which explanation is right.

B This introduces another benefit instead of comparing the two explanations.

C Feeling just as full does not explain why people pay more for these packs.

D The larger appearance helps one explanation, but it does not really weaken the convenience one.

E Correct answer. Nuts are already simple to portion, so their poor sales point to the serving looking too small rather than convenience.

The answer is E
User avatar
Mardee
User avatar
Joined: 22 Nov 2022
Last visit: 19 Aug 2026
Posts: 286
Own Kudos:
248
 [1]
Given Kudos: 21
Posts: 286
Kudos: 248
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 07:42
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. Irrelevant as it doesent differentiate between both the explanations
B. Irrelevant as it doesent support or undermine either of the explanation and brings in a new explanation which is not needed here
C. Irrelevant as it talks about appetite reduction which doesent differentiate between the 2 explanations which concerns convenience and appearance
D. Irrelevant as it supports the second explanation regarding appearance by making the pack bigger but doesent undermine the other explanation regarding convenience
E. Relevant as it supports appearance explanation and undermines the convenience part. It says that, the 100 calorie serving of nuts pack is tiny in appearance due to which sales are poor when compared with other 100 calorie packs which have better sales.

E.
User avatar
firefox300
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2025
Last visit: 27 Jul 2026
Posts: 151
Own Kudos:
140
Posts: 151
Kudos: 140
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 07:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A This only shows who buys the packs, not what makes them popular.

B A longer shelf life is unrelated to either explanation.

C It compares hunger levels, not the reason people buy the smaller packs.

D Looking bigger supports the second idea, but convenience could still matter.

E CORRECT. People do not buy the nut packs even though they are convenient, so appearance seems to matter more.

The correct answer is E
User avatar
gaurikhanna17
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jan 2025
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 73
Own Kudos:
46
 [1]
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 73
Kudos: 46
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 07:43
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IMO : E
A: although it does support the 1st part but doesnt weaken the other -- keep
B : out of scope we are not concerned about shelf life
C: they do tell that 100 cal are enough but it doesnt explain if the packs got sold because of covenience or because they looked substantial.
D: this does target the substantial argument but doesnt take the other argument into consideration
E: WELL ... not substantial == no good sales : hence it prooves substantial = good sales
avatar
niteshmotwani
avatar
Joined: 09 Nov 2025
Last visit: 23 Aug 2026
Posts: 224
Own Kudos:
31
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 224
Kudos: 31
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 07:44
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IMO ANS is C (MAYBE I could be wrong here but this is lengthy question so I took me more than 4 5 mins)
I read this twice and then ignored the background info just focused on 2 reasons given - 1 ready to pay premium 2. substantial. So I focused on these 2 things and try to eliminate answer choices.

Then I feel option A & C make sense to undermine the premium logic and make substantial logic favorable and then just removed option A because I feel option C is more towards data driven observation for substantial and in option A I assumed parents will give to children for same reason not for prestige and premium so In my opinion ans C choice make sense But I don't feel I could able to do this question within 2 mins I need to work more on my fast reading and comprehension skills thanks gmatclub team.
Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 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” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more
User avatar
ShreyaMittal1609
User avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2025
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 82
Own Kudos:
45
 [1]
Given Kudos: 210
GMAT Focus 1: 545 Q77 V77 DI77
Products:
My Reviews GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
GMAT Focus 1: 545 Q77 V77 DI77
Posts: 82
Kudos: 45
 [1]
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 07:45
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
My ans is E)

A) Both hypothesis can be true for parents, Does not help in evaluating- Eliminate
B) Shelf life is not the point of any hypothesis- Out of scope- Eliminate
C) This supports one hypothesis but does nothing to other- Eliminate
D) Protection and make package appear larger does not impact any hypothesis- Eliminate
E) This provides reasons to believe that second hypothesis is true but 1st is not supported- CORRECT
Bunuel
In recent years a number of popular snacks have generated nearly as much total nationwide revenue from sales of pre-packaged one-hundred-calorie packets as from sales of the traditional packages, even though the 100-calorie packs sell for anywhere from two to four times as much per ounce. What explains the surprisingly strong performance of the 100-calorie packs for these snacks? One possible explanation is convenience: consumers may be unconcerned with subjective impressions made by the small packets and, more fundamentally, willing to pay a significant premium to avoid having to measure out and package their own portions. Another possible explanation is that the 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” to the person who consumes it.

Which of the following, if true, supports one of the given explanations while undermining the other?

(A) A rapidly growing segment of the market for 100-calorie packs consists of parents who put them into their children's school lunches.

(B) Because each of the manufacturer’s 100-calorie portions comes in its own separately sealed sterile packet, the stable shelf life after opening of the 100-calorie packs is anywhere from one to two years longer than that of the traditional bulk-packaged product.

(C) In several studies, subjects who ate a 100-calorie pack of a given snack felt the same reduction in appetite, after 30 minutes with nothing further to eat, as those who ate a traditionally sized portion of the same snack.

(D) Manufacturers seal air into the packages along with the snacks, both to protect the snacks from being crushed and to make the packs appear larger.

(E) Sales of 100-calorie packs for nuts such as almonds and cashews, which are so nutrient-dense that such packs contain only ten to twelve nuts on average, have been quite poor and have remained so even as the sales of other 100-calorie packs have exploded.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Show more
User avatar
harishj1996
User avatar
Joined: 01 Jun 2026
Last visit: 01 Aug 2026
Posts: 38
Own Kudos:
28
Given Kudos: 5
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 38
Kudos: 28
GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 7): In recent years a number of popular 15 Jul 2026, 07:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This is an interesting type of question which asks us to provide a Strengthen and Weaken at the same time. First to sort out the two explanations for Pre-thinking:

Explanation 1: The first explanation is that the 100 Calorie packs are used for convenience. So consumers do not need to measure it out and package them individually.

Explanation 2: The second explanation is that the snacks sold at the 100C range represent those which looks and feels "substantial" for that price point.

Now to Options:
A -> Seems to support Explanation 1 but it doesn't actually say anything or undermine 2.
B -> Doesn't seem to support or have any relevance to either. We're not on the shelf life but we are on package convenience vs. substantial feel for eating.
C -> This seems to support Explanation 2 but doesn't seem to say anything with regards to 1
D -> This option seems to be totally irrelevant to both the explanations. We are not concerned with why air is filled into the packaging.
E -> CORRECT. The option correctly supports Explanation 2 but undermines Explanation 1. Option E gives that the 100 calorie packs of nuts and cashews sell poorly because even though they are calorie dense and the correct amount of calories, they feel less substantial since there are so few of them. Therefore, users are not satisfied. This supports Explanation 2 that users must feel like it looks substantial to be satisfied.

At the same time, it undermines Explanation 1. Because the number of nuts correctly corresponds to the stated number of calories. So if the users were looking for convenience, then they know if they 100C snacks, they would get exactly what they paid for. The fact that they are selling poorly hence undermines the convenience explanation.

Hence, E is the best and only answer.
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts