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.
Jun 0808:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
A powerful GMAT course taught live online + 6 months of access to TTP OnDemand GMAT Masterclass included! Mon/Wed June 8, 2026 →August 12, 2026 8:00pm-10:00pm EST
Jun 1006:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
Jun 1111:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
TTP GMAT OnDemand gives serious students 400+ hours of expert video instruction, the full TTP course, AI support, weekly office hours, and a 715+ score guarantee—all built for elite GMAT score improvement.
02 Jun 2026, 16:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
Cause-related marketing, in which retail corporations cultivate associations between their products and a charitable organization to which they donate, has grown rapidly over the past 10-15 years as a method of brand differentiation, especially in markets where already-small distinctions among leading products continue growing even smaller. Over that period, paradoxically, cause-related marketing whose costs, especially marketing and legal expenses, are greatest upfront, has spread most dramatically in the apparel and athletic equipment industries, in the same timeframe as keen global competition has slashed those industries’ per-unit profit margins to their first-ever single-digit percentages.
A series of studies by Raffaello and colleagues between 2016 and 2019 appears to resolve the incongruity, by showing that retailers’ charitable commitments not only deepen brand loyalty in their consumers, but also diminish those consumers’ price sensitivity to such an extent that the commitments become sources of overall profit for the retailers, generating enough extra sales revenue to outweigh the periodic monetary contributions and donations of wholesale-sized lots of product from the retailers to their charities of choice.
Nonetheless, evidence is now emerging that cause-related marketing may have crested an all-time peak in 2021 and begun a gentle yet unmistakable long-term slide back to the periphery of the retail space. This hypothesis was first put forward by Qudaibergenov and Yannick, on the combined basis of their own 2022-2023 studies documenting consumers’ increasing tendency to take retail-charity partnerships for granted, resulting in gradual erosion of the price premium commanded by cause-linked retail products and of Sulley and Lara’s 2024 comprehensive market analysis, none of whose twenty-seven multivariate regressions suggests that any loosening of the global retail industry’s historically tight margins, or any procedural improvements that could cut manufacturing costs, is due for at least a decade from 2024.
It can best be inferred that the retailers in which of the following competing pairs would have been most likely to undertake cause-based marketing during the recent ten to fifteen-year period described in the passage?
A. A region’s three leading automotive manufacturers, all three of which produce military vehicles, while otherwise one primarily manufactures passenger cars, another largely light trucks and sport-utility vehicles, and the third mainly heavy trucks, tradespersons’ work vans and school buses.
B. A country’s two high-fashion houses: one long famous for menswear and the other for womenswear, but both having begun to produce unisex outerwear and children’s clothes around the beginning of the cited time period.
C. A country’s two leading manufacturers of pots and pans: one using primarily stainless steel, the other mostly ceramic or cast iron.
D. A country’s two leading manufacturers of smartphones, whose flagship models at the beginning of the cited time period were functionally similar but encoded personal information differently, one on a removable physical SIM card, the other on an eSIM embedded in the phone’s chipset, but by the middle of the period were both required by law to use eSIM.
E. A country’s two leading manufacturers of smartphones, whose flagship models at the beginning of the cited time period were functionally similar but encoded personal information differently: one on a removable physical SIM card, the other on an eSIM embedded in the phone’s chipset, but by the middle of the period were both required by law to use eSIM.
A series of studies by Raffaello and colleagues between 2016 and 2019 appears to resolve the incongruity, by showing that retailers’ charitable commitments not only deepen brand loyalty in their consumers, but also diminish those consumers’ price sensitivity to such an extent that the commitments become sources of overall profit for the retailers, generating enough extra sales revenue to outweigh the periodic monetary contributions and donations of wholesale-sized lots of product from the retailers to their charities of choice.
Nonetheless, evidence is now emerging that cause-related marketing may have crested an all-time peak in 2021 and begun a gentle yet unmistakable long-term slide back to the periphery of the retail space. This hypothesis was first put forward by Qudaibergenov and Yannick, on the combined basis of their own 2022-2023 studies documenting consumers’ increasing tendency to take retail-charity partnerships for granted, resulting in gradual erosion of the price premium commanded by cause-linked retail products and of Sulley and Lara’s 2024 comprehensive market analysis, none of whose twenty-seven multivariate regressions suggests that any loosening of the global retail industry’s historically tight margins, or any procedural improvements that could cut manufacturing costs, is due for at least a decade from 2024.
It can best be inferred that the retailers in which of the following competing pairs would have been most likely to undertake cause-based marketing during the recent ten to fifteen-year period described in the passage?
A. A region’s three leading automotive manufacturers, all three of which produce military vehicles, while otherwise one primarily manufactures passenger cars, another largely light trucks and sport-utility vehicles, and the third mainly heavy trucks, tradespersons’ work vans and school buses.
B. A country’s two high-fashion houses: one long famous for menswear and the other for womenswear, but both having begun to produce unisex outerwear and children’s clothes around the beginning of the cited time period.
C. A country’s two leading manufacturers of pots and pans: one using primarily stainless steel, the other mostly ceramic or cast iron.
D. A country’s two leading manufacturers of smartphones, whose flagship models at the beginning of the cited time period were functionally similar but encoded personal information differently, one on a removable physical SIM card, the other on an eSIM embedded in the phone’s chipset, but by the middle of the period were both required by law to use eSIM.
E. A country’s two leading manufacturers of smartphones, whose flagship models at the beginning of the cited time period were functionally similar but encoded personal information differently: one on a removable physical SIM card, the other on an eSIM embedded in the phone’s chipset, but by the middle of the period were both required by law to use eSIM.
02 Jun 2026, 16:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
Cause-related marketing, in which retail corporations cultivate associations between their products and a charitable organization to which they donate, has grown rapidly over the past 10-15 years as a method of brand differentiation, especially in markets where already-small distinctions among leading products continue growing even smaller. Over that period, paradoxically, cause-related marketing whose costs, especially marketing and legal expenses, are greatest upfront, has spread most dramatically in the apparel and athletic equipment industries, in the same timeframe as keen global competition has slashed those industries’ per-unit profit margins to their first-ever single-digit percentages.
A series of studies by Raffaello and colleagues between 2016 and 2019 appears to resolve the incongruity, by showing that retailers’ charitable commitments not only deepen brand loyalty in their consumers, but also diminish those consumers’ price sensitivity to such an extent that the commitments become sources of overall profit for the retailers, generating enough extra sales revenue to outweigh the periodic monetary contributions and donations of wholesale-sized lots of product from the retailers to their charities of choice.
Nonetheless, evidence is now emerging that cause-related marketing may have crested an all-time peak in 2021 and begun a gentle yet unmistakable long-term slide back to the periphery of the retail space. This hypothesis was first put forward by Qudaibergenov and Yannick, on the combined basis of their own 2022-2023 studies documenting consumers’ increasing tendency to take retail-charity partnerships for granted, resulting in gradual erosion of the price premium commanded by cause-linked retail products and of Sulley and Lara’s 2024 comprehensive market analysis, none of whose twenty-seven multivariate regressions suggests that any loosening of the global retail industry’s historically tight margins, or any procedural improvements that could cut manufacturing costs, is due for at least a decade from 2024.
It can best be inferred that the retailers in which of the following competing pairs would have been most likely to undertake cause-based marketing during the recent ten to fifteen-year period described in the passage?
A. A region’s three leading automotive manufacturers, all three of which produce military vehicles, while otherwise one primarily manufactures passenger cars, another largely light trucks and sport-utility vehicles, and the third mainly heavy trucks, tradespersons’ work vans and school buses.
B. A country’s two high-fashion houses: one long famous for menswear and the other for womenswear, but both having begun to produce unisex outerwear and children’s clothes around the beginning of the cited time period.
C. A country’s two leading manufacturers of pots and pans: one using primarily stainless steel, the other mostly ceramic or cast iron.
D. A country’s two leading manufacturers of smartphones, whose flagship models at the beginning of the cited time period were functionally similar but encoded personal information differently, one on a removable physical SIM card, the other on an eSIM embedded in the phone’s chipset, but by the middle of the period were both required by law to use eSIM.
E. A country’s two leading manufacturers of smartphones, whose flagship models at the beginning of the cited time period were functionally similar but encoded personal information differently: one on a removable physical SIM card, the other on an eSIM embedded in the phone’s chipset, but by the middle of the period were both required by law to use eSIM.
In the first paragraph of the passage, the author points out that cause-based marketing was taken on with the greatest likelihood by firms whose products had become almost identical to those of their rivals. (For a much more detailed path to its realization, please consult the key to the immediately preceding problem.) cause-based marketing was
Our job in this problem, therefore, is just to select the answer choice that most closely describes companies whose products change to be more and more like each other, until they’re almost identical. “virtually identical”. Let’s go through the choices, evaluating how closely each of them comes to “companies whose products change to be more and more like each other, until they’re almost identical”:
(A) We can ignore the production of military vehicles here, as this entire passage concerns itself only with CONSUMER retail commerce, which does not include any military or other government supply chains. The remainder of this choice describes 3 companies that are selling 3 completely different sets of vehicles to consumers, so this choice is the precise opposite of what we want.
(B) This choice describes two retail corporations whose best-known product lines are altogether different, menswear vs. womenswear, and that do not become any less different over the cited time period, Not what we want.
(C) As in choice A after the non-consumer (military) supply chain is removed from consideration, the retailers in this choice offer product lines that are mutually exclusive (= not a single item is sold by both) and that are trivially easy to distinguish at the slightest glance. This choice is precisely what we DON’T want in this problem.
(D) The flagship offerings of the two phone manufacturers in this choice are perfect illustrations of what is written word-for-word in paragraph: At the start of the time period under consideration, those two top-of-the-line phones are described as having been exactly alike in every way other than one of them using a physical SIM card while the other used on board eSIM software; this single difference is very clearly an example of an “already-small difference” (to use the author’s words.) Upon the enactment of the new law mentioned at the end of choice D, both phones will use eSIM, obliterating the one explicit difference between them that was actually mentioned here, and making them literally identical in terms of all the factors mentioned in this problem. This change definitely qualifies as “making already-small differences even smaller”, so this choice is exactly what we want on both counts.
(E) While “exactly the same set of game titles” may make this choice look tempting at first, the two companies described here produce those games for different, mutually exclusive platforms, not a small difference. Moreover, this choice contains nothing to satisfy the second half of the description from paragraph 1, namely that the originally small differences get even smaller during the cited time period.
More generally, remember that you can appeal to plain common sense, if that’s possible in the problem at hand. Here, if you’re not confident that the difference described in choice D is meant to be small/trifling while that in choice E is much more significant, you can use the commonsense rule-of-thumb that genuinely tiny/trifling/trivial differences just don’t matter to most people.
Considering the physical SIM / eSIM difference in choice D, it’s quite reasonable to imagine that most real-world people shopping for phones will not particularly care which of these is used by any given phone. On the other hand, turning our attention to choice E, the thought that somebody might be equally indifferent to the choice of platform/device on which to play a video game(!!) is outlandish even for a single hypothetical person, let alone for the same majority of people who would be indifferent to eSIM vs. physical SIM. These commonsense considerations confirm that the difference described in choice D is, indeed, “small” as required by the passage’s description, and that the difference in choice E is most certainly not.
Answer: D
Cause-related marketing, in which retail corporations cultivate associations between their products and a charitable organization to which they donate, has grown rapidly over the past 10-15 years as a method of brand differentiation, especially in markets where already-small distinctions among leading products continue growing even smaller. Over that period, paradoxically, cause-related marketing whose costs, especially marketing and legal expenses, are greatest upfront, has spread most dramatically in the apparel and athletic equipment industries, in the same timeframe as keen global competition has slashed those industries’ per-unit profit margins to their first-ever single-digit percentages.
A series of studies by Raffaello and colleagues between 2016 and 2019 appears to resolve the incongruity, by showing that retailers’ charitable commitments not only deepen brand loyalty in their consumers, but also diminish those consumers’ price sensitivity to such an extent that the commitments become sources of overall profit for the retailers, generating enough extra sales revenue to outweigh the periodic monetary contributions and donations of wholesale-sized lots of product from the retailers to their charities of choice.
Nonetheless, evidence is now emerging that cause-related marketing may have crested an all-time peak in 2021 and begun a gentle yet unmistakable long-term slide back to the periphery of the retail space. This hypothesis was first put forward by Qudaibergenov and Yannick, on the combined basis of their own 2022-2023 studies documenting consumers’ increasing tendency to take retail-charity partnerships for granted, resulting in gradual erosion of the price premium commanded by cause-linked retail products and of Sulley and Lara’s 2024 comprehensive market analysis, none of whose twenty-seven multivariate regressions suggests that any loosening of the global retail industry’s historically tight margins, or any procedural improvements that could cut manufacturing costs, is due for at least a decade from 2024.
It can best be inferred that the retailers in which of the following competing pairs would have been most likely to undertake cause-based marketing during the recent ten to fifteen-year period described in the passage?
A. A region’s three leading automotive manufacturers, all three of which produce military vehicles, while otherwise one primarily manufactures passenger cars, another largely light trucks and sport-utility vehicles, and the third mainly heavy trucks, tradespersons’ work vans and school buses.
B. A country’s two high-fashion houses: one long famous for menswear and the other for womenswear, but both having begun to produce unisex outerwear and children’s clothes around the beginning of the cited time period.
C. A country’s two leading manufacturers of pots and pans: one using primarily stainless steel, the other mostly ceramic or cast iron.
D. A country’s two leading manufacturers of smartphones, whose flagship models at the beginning of the cited time period were functionally similar but encoded personal information differently, one on a removable physical SIM card, the other on an eSIM embedded in the phone’s chipset, but by the middle of the period were both required by law to use eSIM.
E. A country’s two leading manufacturers of smartphones, whose flagship models at the beginning of the cited time period were functionally similar but encoded personal information differently: one on a removable physical SIM card, the other on an eSIM embedded in the phone’s chipset, but by the middle of the period were both required by law to use eSIM.
In the first paragraph of the passage, the author points out that cause-based marketing was taken on with the greatest likelihood by firms whose products had become almost identical to those of their rivals. (For a much more detailed path to its realization, please consult the key to the immediately preceding problem.) cause-based marketing was
Our job in this problem, therefore, is just to select the answer choice that most closely describes companies whose products change to be more and more like each other, until they’re almost identical. “virtually identical”. Let’s go through the choices, evaluating how closely each of them comes to “companies whose products change to be more and more like each other, until they’re almost identical”:
(A) We can ignore the production of military vehicles here, as this entire passage concerns itself only with CONSUMER retail commerce, which does not include any military or other government supply chains. The remainder of this choice describes 3 companies that are selling 3 completely different sets of vehicles to consumers, so this choice is the precise opposite of what we want.
(B) This choice describes two retail corporations whose best-known product lines are altogether different, menswear vs. womenswear, and that do not become any less different over the cited time period, Not what we want.
(C) As in choice A after the non-consumer (military) supply chain is removed from consideration, the retailers in this choice offer product lines that are mutually exclusive (= not a single item is sold by both) and that are trivially easy to distinguish at the slightest glance. This choice is precisely what we DON’T want in this problem.
(D) The flagship offerings of the two phone manufacturers in this choice are perfect illustrations of what is written word-for-word in paragraph: At the start of the time period under consideration, those two top-of-the-line phones are described as having been exactly alike in every way other than one of them using a physical SIM card while the other used on board eSIM software; this single difference is very clearly an example of an “already-small difference” (to use the author’s words.) Upon the enactment of the new law mentioned at the end of choice D, both phones will use eSIM, obliterating the one explicit difference between them that was actually mentioned here, and making them literally identical in terms of all the factors mentioned in this problem. This change definitely qualifies as “making already-small differences even smaller”, so this choice is exactly what we want on both counts.
(E) While “exactly the same set of game titles” may make this choice look tempting at first, the two companies described here produce those games for different, mutually exclusive platforms, not a small difference. Moreover, this choice contains nothing to satisfy the second half of the description from paragraph 1, namely that the originally small differences get even smaller during the cited time period.
More generally, remember that you can appeal to plain common sense, if that’s possible in the problem at hand. Here, if you’re not confident that the difference described in choice D is meant to be small/trifling while that in choice E is much more significant, you can use the commonsense rule-of-thumb that genuinely tiny/trifling/trivial differences just don’t matter to most people.
Considering the physical SIM / eSIM difference in choice D, it’s quite reasonable to imagine that most real-world people shopping for phones will not particularly care which of these is used by any given phone. On the other hand, turning our attention to choice E, the thought that somebody might be equally indifferent to the choice of platform/device on which to play a video game(!!) is outlandish even for a single hypothetical person, let alone for the same majority of people who would be indifferent to eSIM vs. physical SIM. These commonsense considerations confirm that the difference described in choice D is, indeed, “small” as required by the passage’s description, and that the difference in choice E is most certainly not.
Answer: D
