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.
Aug 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Save up to $1,000 on select GMAT prep now. This Fall, achieve your most ambitious goals with millions of student success stories behind you.
Aug 2710:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Aug 3110:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM EDT
Top Scores Start with a Elite Online Prep Course. Enroll for 6 months of access to over 400 hours of GMAT video lessons AND 715+ Score Guarantee!
Sep 0212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Thought your job leaves no time for GMAT prep? After multiple GMAT attempts and a demanding consulting job, Kshitij improved to 695 in under 2 months. Learn the mindset shifts, study strategy, and execution changes that made the breakthrough possible.
Sep 0208:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 0301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 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.
Sep 0907:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway
07 Aug 2026, 12:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
07 Aug 2026, 12:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
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.
The argument seeks to explain the surprisingly strong sales of “100-calorie packs” of snack foods to consumers, in spite of the fact that they cost up to four times as much per ounce (or per gram, or per any other quantity unit) as the more traditionally familiar packages of the same snack. One given explanation is that consumers are single-mindedly concerned with convenience—to the exclusion of all other factors, including appearance and price—and are happy to overspend to avoid having to measure and bag the snacks themselves. The other given explanation is entirely based on the psychology of superficial appearances, positing that 100-calorie packs are popular because they are the smallest possible snack size that still looks substantial AND takes the edge off of a snack craving ("feels substantial").
We need an answer choice that is simultaneously a STRENGTHENER of one of these two (we can't tell which) hypotheses, but a WEAKENER of the other. Let’s take it to the choices.
(A) "A rapidly growing segment" could represent any imaginable share of the market, from negligibly tiny to substantial; there is no way to tell whether this segment is large enough to explain market-wide trends. Furthermore, either of the explanations presented in the passage could conceivably apply: the parents could be primarily drawn to the convenience and time savings of dropping 100-calorie packs in their children's lunches rather than measuring and bagging equivalent portions themselves, but it also could be the case that the 100-calorie portions are the smallest amounts of junk food that satisfy their children's eyes and stomachs—or both, or neither. So, even if these parents do represent a large enough slice of the market to have explanatory power, their presence does not definitively strengthen or weaken either of the two hypotheses.
(B) This choice provides an altogether novel reason for consumers' purchases of 100-calorie packs, thereby undermining both of the explanations provided in the passage.
(C) This answer choice is at least consistent with the second hypothesis, in that it backs the idea that the 100-calorie portions feel substantial to those who consume them. However, that hypothesis is at best supported only modestly, as the assumption that people will wait 30 minutes before eating anything else—hoping that their cravings will disappear in the meantime—is highly questionable. Moreover, the evidence in this choice is entirely irrelevant to the convenience hypothesis.
(D) This answer choice seems to indicate that the manufacturers themselves believe, at least somewhat, in the second hypothesis; else, they would have little motivation to make the packs appear larger than the actual size. However, this statement does not offer any evidence for that hypothesis. Specifically, it is not stated that the puffed-up packs actually sell any better than their counterparts with less air. Moreover, this statement neither strengthens nor weakens the convenience hypothesis, which contains the explicit premise that consumers are relatively unconcerned with the physical characteristics of the packs.
(E) CORRECT. The convenience hypothesis includes the explicit premise that consumers are relatively unconcerned with subjective impressions. Under the convenience hypothesis—since 100-calorie packs are, after all, no less convenient (and perhaps even more so) when they are very small—we would expect the volume of product in the pack to have little or no influence on sales. Therefore, this choice weakens the convenience hypothesis. On the other hand, the second hypothesis is based on the idea that the 100-calorie packs, despite their small size, still look and feel substantial to those who consume them—an effect that is no longer plausible for a tiny packet containing just ten or eleven nuts. The POOR sales figures for the snacks that CANNOT possibly still look “substantial” at the 100-calorie size—amid an unprecedented boom in the sales of other snacks in similar packaging—end up lending support to the second, appearance-based hypothesis. This choice therefore weakens the first hypothesis while strengthening the second, so it's the correct answer.
Answer: E
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.
The argument seeks to explain the surprisingly strong sales of “100-calorie packs” of snack foods to consumers, in spite of the fact that they cost up to four times as much per ounce (or per gram, or per any other quantity unit) as the more traditionally familiar packages of the same snack. One given explanation is that consumers are single-mindedly concerned with convenience—to the exclusion of all other factors, including appearance and price—and are happy to overspend to avoid having to measure and bag the snacks themselves. The other given explanation is entirely based on the psychology of superficial appearances, positing that 100-calorie packs are popular because they are the smallest possible snack size that still looks substantial AND takes the edge off of a snack craving ("feels substantial").
We need an answer choice that is simultaneously a STRENGTHENER of one of these two (we can't tell which) hypotheses, but a WEAKENER of the other. Let’s take it to the choices.
(A) "A rapidly growing segment" could represent any imaginable share of the market, from negligibly tiny to substantial; there is no way to tell whether this segment is large enough to explain market-wide trends. Furthermore, either of the explanations presented in the passage could conceivably apply: the parents could be primarily drawn to the convenience and time savings of dropping 100-calorie packs in their children's lunches rather than measuring and bagging equivalent portions themselves, but it also could be the case that the 100-calorie portions are the smallest amounts of junk food that satisfy their children's eyes and stomachs—or both, or neither. So, even if these parents do represent a large enough slice of the market to have explanatory power, their presence does not definitively strengthen or weaken either of the two hypotheses.
(B) This choice provides an altogether novel reason for consumers' purchases of 100-calorie packs, thereby undermining both of the explanations provided in the passage.
(C) This answer choice is at least consistent with the second hypothesis, in that it backs the idea that the 100-calorie portions feel substantial to those who consume them. However, that hypothesis is at best supported only modestly, as the assumption that people will wait 30 minutes before eating anything else—hoping that their cravings will disappear in the meantime—is highly questionable. Moreover, the evidence in this choice is entirely irrelevant to the convenience hypothesis.
(D) This answer choice seems to indicate that the manufacturers themselves believe, at least somewhat, in the second hypothesis; else, they would have little motivation to make the packs appear larger than the actual size. However, this statement does not offer any evidence for that hypothesis. Specifically, it is not stated that the puffed-up packs actually sell any better than their counterparts with less air. Moreover, this statement neither strengthens nor weakens the convenience hypothesis, which contains the explicit premise that consumers are relatively unconcerned with the physical characteristics of the packs.
(E) CORRECT. The convenience hypothesis includes the explicit premise that consumers are relatively unconcerned with subjective impressions. Under the convenience hypothesis—since 100-calorie packs are, after all, no less convenient (and perhaps even more so) when they are very small—we would expect the volume of product in the pack to have little or no influence on sales. Therefore, this choice weakens the convenience hypothesis. On the other hand, the second hypothesis is based on the idea that the 100-calorie packs, despite their small size, still look and feel substantial to those who consume them—an effect that is no longer plausible for a tiny packet containing just ten or eleven nuts. The POOR sales figures for the snacks that CANNOT possibly still look “substantial” at the 100-calorie size—amid an unprecedented boom in the sales of other snacks in similar packaging—end up lending support to the second, appearance-based hypothesis. This choice therefore weakens the first hypothesis while strengthening the second, so it's the correct answer.
Answer: E
