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 0308:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 7 of our GMAT Ninja CR series, we are rounding up the oddballs, the misfits, and the format-benders: EXCEPT, Fill-In-The-Blanks, and other unusual Critical Reasoning question types. When you see a question that ends with a literal blank line
May 2910:00 AM IST
-11:00 PM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.- Jun 02
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Probability is one of the most important GMAT Quant topics because it often combines logic, counting, set theory, and permutations & combinations. Many students try to solve probability questions by listing every possible case, but GMAT probability... - Jun 04
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
For most test takers, Data Insights is the most challenging section on the GMAT, with test takers scoring several points lower on average on DI than on Quant or Verbal and completing the section with less time to spare. - Jun 10
06:00 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..
02 Jun 2026, 16:39
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.
According to the passage, Qudaibergenov and Yannick’s prediction of a continuous, gradual decline in cause-based retail marketing after 2024 was most clearly based on cited observations that
A. consumers are gradually losing faith in retailers’ charitable commitments at the same time as the ongoing costs of those commitments to the retailers are increasing.
B. technological innovations should allow major retail companies to make systematic cuts to their production costs in about ten years’ time, and that the prices of goods linked to cause-based marketing remain residually high enough to sustain the retailers financially until then.
C. the number of retailers that can still afford their existing cause-based marketing partnerships and the number of such partnerships for which consumers remain enthusiastic are both shrinking.
D. the prices that consumers are willing to pay for products linked to cause-based marketing are going down while production costs and profit margins remain steady.
E. the proportion of people who trust charitable organizations to steward donations responsibly is decreasing, while the proportion who feel that those organizations have largely become compromised by partisan political associations is increasing at approximately the same rate.
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.
According to the passage, Qudaibergenov and Yannick’s prediction of a continuous, gradual decline in cause-based retail marketing after 2024 was most clearly based on cited observations that
A. consumers are gradually losing faith in retailers’ charitable commitments at the same time as the ongoing costs of those commitments to the retailers are increasing.
B. technological innovations should allow major retail companies to make systematic cuts to their production costs in about ten years’ time, and that the prices of goods linked to cause-based marketing remain residually high enough to sustain the retailers financially until then.
C. the number of retailers that can still afford their existing cause-based marketing partnerships and the number of such partnerships for which consumers remain enthusiastic are both shrinking.
D. the prices that consumers are willing to pay for products linked to cause-based marketing are going down while production costs and profit margins remain steady.
E. the proportion of people who trust charitable organizations to steward donations responsibly is decreasing, while the proportion who feel that those organizations have largely become compromised by partisan political associations is increasing at approximately the same rate.
02 Jun 2026, 16:39
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.
According to the passage, Qudaibergenov and Yannick’s prediction of a continuous, gradual decline in cause-based retail marketing after 2024 was most clearly based on cited observations that
A. consumers are gradually losing faith in retailers’ charitable commitments at the same time as the ongoing costs of those commitments to the retailers are increasing.
B. technological innovations should allow major retail companies to make systematic cuts to their production costs in about ten years’ time, and that the prices of goods linked to cause-based marketing remain residually high enough to sustain the retailers financially until then.
C. the number of retailers that can still afford their existing cause-based marketing partnerships and the number of such partnerships for which consumers remain enthusiastic are both shrinking.
D. the prices that consumers are willing to pay for products linked to cause-based marketing are going down while production costs and profit margins remain steady.
E. the proportion of people who trust charitable organizations to steward donations responsibly is decreasing, while the proportion who feel that those organizations have largely become compromised by partisan political associations is increasing at approximately the same rate.
This is an “according to the passage” problem, so the correct answer should reiterate the content of a relevant statement from the passage, most likely with substantial changes in phrasing and word choices, but without any logical transformations of the type seen in the answers to IMPLY/INFER/SUGGEST questions.
Accordingly, we need to scan the last paragraph for explicitly stated answers to “What were Qudaibergenov and Yannick’s reasons for predicting that cause-based retail marketing will go on a slow decline?”
The final paragraph mentions two sources cited by Qudaibergenov and Yannick as a basis for this prediction. The actual facts from those sources that are MENTIONED here, which together constitute the goal of this problem, are boldfaced below:
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 [data]suggests that any loosening of the global retail industry’s historically tight margins, or any procedural improvements that could cut manufacturing costs, can reasonably be expected for at least a decade from 2024.
To simplify the language a bit, the first and second boldfaced parts here, respectively, say that
• The highest “premium” (inflated) prices that consumers will actually be willing to pay for cause-linked retail goods will gradually decrease, as consumers begin to think of cause-based marketing as something to expect from retailers in general (“taken for granted”) rather than an inspiring new pro-social development,
and
• Both the historic low profit margins (in the single digits as per paragraph 1) and the current average costs for the consumer retail industry can be expected to stay where they are for at least 10 years.
Choice (D) matches both of these statements, so (D) is the correct answer.
INCORRECT ANSWERS:
(A) That consumers are beginning to take retail-charity partnerships for granted may suggest that they are no longer feeling the same excitement or novelty that they may have felt when cause-based commitments were first announced by retailers, but most certainly does NOT suggest that consumers are “losing faith in” or otherwise becoming disillusioned with those commitments. It’s actually the opposite: One can only take for granted things in whose basic nature, integrity and/or functionality one fundamentally trusts enough to “take them for granted” and to let them run without constantly paying attention to them. So, “gradually losing faith” is grounds for eliminating choice (A).
This choice can also be eliminated on the basis of its other half, which is completely unsupported by the passage: The actual costs OF cause-based charitable partnerships, which would include, e.g., advertising/publicity costs, as well as the full value of monetary donations and at least the manufacturer’s costs for product/equipment donations, are not discussed anywhere in the passage. (The only financial discussed are direct balance-sheet items for retail businesses, such as profit margins and item prices.)
(B) Qudaibergenov and Yannick quoted Sulley and Lara’s contention that there will be neither any increases in profit margins from their current historic lows nor any cost-cutting innovations in the next 10 years. An absence of these phenomena from the next decade does NOT predict their presence on any specific future timeline, so Sulley and Lara cannot be taken to have predicted any such affirmative events past 10 years (unless they were explicitly quoted making such a prediction, which they aren’t here). The first half of this choice is therefore completely unsupported.
The second half is likewise unsupported: Qudaibergenov and Yannick, citing their own research, state only that the maximum prices consumers are willing to pay for cause-linked goods are falling. They say nothing about the projected timeline of that decrease, nor about how low the prices will fall before stabilizing.
(C) It is true that the facts cited by Qudaibergenov and Yannick can be assembled into an argument that fewer and fewer retailers will go on being able to afford their charitable commitments (since the revenues are falling along with the prices consumers are willing to pay, while the costs will be flat for at least 10 more years). This question, however, is asking for cited observations, in other words, facts quoted from the research papers in which the relevant data points were directly observed by the researchers. There are only two cited observations in this passage: namely, the two given as bullet points in the direct solution above. (More generally, of course, predictions and projections of future data can NEVER be called “observations”.)
The second half of this choice is fundamentally supported, since Qudaibergenov and Yannick’s finding that consumers are increasingly “taking [cause-based commitments by retailers] for granted” does, in fact, imply a certain loss of enthusiasm, but this doesn’t make the first part any less incorrect.
(E) Absolutely nothing in this passage, whether it comes from Qudaibergenov and Yannick or otherwise, has any relation to levels of public trust in charities’ financial integrity or to public sentiment about whether charities are becoming tainted by partisan political biases.
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.
According to the passage, Qudaibergenov and Yannick’s prediction of a continuous, gradual decline in cause-based retail marketing after 2024 was most clearly based on cited observations that
A. consumers are gradually losing faith in retailers’ charitable commitments at the same time as the ongoing costs of those commitments to the retailers are increasing.
B. technological innovations should allow major retail companies to make systematic cuts to their production costs in about ten years’ time, and that the prices of goods linked to cause-based marketing remain residually high enough to sustain the retailers financially until then.
C. the number of retailers that can still afford their existing cause-based marketing partnerships and the number of such partnerships for which consumers remain enthusiastic are both shrinking.
D. the prices that consumers are willing to pay for products linked to cause-based marketing are going down while production costs and profit margins remain steady.
E. the proportion of people who trust charitable organizations to steward donations responsibly is decreasing, while the proportion who feel that those organizations have largely become compromised by partisan political associations is increasing at approximately the same rate.
This is an “according to the passage” problem, so the correct answer should reiterate the content of a relevant statement from the passage, most likely with substantial changes in phrasing and word choices, but without any logical transformations of the type seen in the answers to IMPLY/INFER/SUGGEST questions.
Accordingly, we need to scan the last paragraph for explicitly stated answers to “What were Qudaibergenov and Yannick’s reasons for predicting that cause-based retail marketing will go on a slow decline?”
The final paragraph mentions two sources cited by Qudaibergenov and Yannick as a basis for this prediction. The actual facts from those sources that are MENTIONED here, which together constitute the goal of this problem, are boldfaced below:
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 [data]suggests that any loosening of the global retail industry’s historically tight margins, or any procedural improvements that could cut manufacturing costs, can reasonably be expected for at least a decade from 2024.
To simplify the language a bit, the first and second boldfaced parts here, respectively, say that
• The highest “premium” (inflated) prices that consumers will actually be willing to pay for cause-linked retail goods will gradually decrease, as consumers begin to think of cause-based marketing as something to expect from retailers in general (“taken for granted”) rather than an inspiring new pro-social development,
and
• Both the historic low profit margins (in the single digits as per paragraph 1) and the current average costs for the consumer retail industry can be expected to stay where they are for at least 10 years.
Choice (D) matches both of these statements, so (D) is the correct answer.
INCORRECT ANSWERS:
(A) That consumers are beginning to take retail-charity partnerships for granted may suggest that they are no longer feeling the same excitement or novelty that they may have felt when cause-based commitments were first announced by retailers, but most certainly does NOT suggest that consumers are “losing faith in” or otherwise becoming disillusioned with those commitments. It’s actually the opposite: One can only take for granted things in whose basic nature, integrity and/or functionality one fundamentally trusts enough to “take them for granted” and to let them run without constantly paying attention to them. So, “gradually losing faith” is grounds for eliminating choice (A).
This choice can also be eliminated on the basis of its other half, which is completely unsupported by the passage: The actual costs OF cause-based charitable partnerships, which would include, e.g., advertising/publicity costs, as well as the full value of monetary donations and at least the manufacturer’s costs for product/equipment donations, are not discussed anywhere in the passage. (The only financial discussed are direct balance-sheet items for retail businesses, such as profit margins and item prices.)
(B) Qudaibergenov and Yannick quoted Sulley and Lara’s contention that there will be neither any increases in profit margins from their current historic lows nor any cost-cutting innovations in the next 10 years. An absence of these phenomena from the next decade does NOT predict their presence on any specific future timeline, so Sulley and Lara cannot be taken to have predicted any such affirmative events past 10 years (unless they were explicitly quoted making such a prediction, which they aren’t here). The first half of this choice is therefore completely unsupported.
The second half is likewise unsupported: Qudaibergenov and Yannick, citing their own research, state only that the maximum prices consumers are willing to pay for cause-linked goods are falling. They say nothing about the projected timeline of that decrease, nor about how low the prices will fall before stabilizing.
(C) It is true that the facts cited by Qudaibergenov and Yannick can be assembled into an argument that fewer and fewer retailers will go on being able to afford their charitable commitments (since the revenues are falling along with the prices consumers are willing to pay, while the costs will be flat for at least 10 more years). This question, however, is asking for cited observations, in other words, facts quoted from the research papers in which the relevant data points were directly observed by the researchers. There are only two cited observations in this passage: namely, the two given as bullet points in the direct solution above. (More generally, of course, predictions and projections of future data can NEVER be called “observations”.)
The second half of this choice is fundamentally supported, since Qudaibergenov and Yannick’s finding that consumers are increasingly “taking [cause-based commitments by retailers] for granted” does, in fact, imply a certain loss of enthusiasm, but this doesn’t make the first part any less incorrect.
(E) Absolutely nothing in this passage, whether it comes from Qudaibergenov and Yannick or otherwise, has any relation to levels of public trust in charities’ financial integrity or to public sentiment about whether charities are becoming tainted by partisan political biases.
Answer: D
