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.
May 0510:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
GMAT Inequalities is a high-frequency topic in GMAT Quant, but many students struggle because the concepts behave differently from standard algebra. Understanding the right rules, patterns, and edge cases can significantly improve both speed and accuracy.- May 06
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory.... - May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
09 Feb 2026, 11:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
A comparison of Norvia and Estera reveals a sharp contrast in household energy use. In Norvia, where prices are market-driven and lightly regulated, households have used less energy over the past decade despite rising incomes. In Estera, where residential energy is heavily subsidized, household consumption has steadily increased. Analysts suggest that Norvians respond more to price signals, while Estera’s subsidies may have discouraged conservation.
Which of the following can be most reasonably inferred from the information above?
A. The contrasting energy consumption patterns in Norvia and Estera suggest that pricing structures may play a significant role in shaping household responses to energy costs.
B. Despite rising incomes in Norvia, energy consumption per capita has declined, indicating that economic growth alone does not necessarily lead to increased energy use.
C. If Norvia were to implement residential energy subsidies similar to Estera’s, energy consumption would likely return to pre-decline levels.
D. Estera’s increase in household energy use cannot be attributed to factors other than its subsidy policy.
E. While energy pricing appears to influence household consumption patterns, it may not be the sole factor driving differences in energy use between Norvia and Estera.
Which of the following can be most reasonably inferred from the information above?
A. The contrasting energy consumption patterns in Norvia and Estera suggest that pricing structures may play a significant role in shaping household responses to energy costs.
B. Despite rising incomes in Norvia, energy consumption per capita has declined, indicating that economic growth alone does not necessarily lead to increased energy use.
C. If Norvia were to implement residential energy subsidies similar to Estera’s, energy consumption would likely return to pre-decline levels.
D. Estera’s increase in household energy use cannot be attributed to factors other than its subsidy policy.
E. While energy pricing appears to influence household consumption patterns, it may not be the sole factor driving differences in energy use between Norvia and Estera.
09 Feb 2026, 11:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
A comparison of Norvia and Estera reveals a sharp contrast in household energy use. In Norvia, where prices are market-driven and lightly regulated, households have used less energy over the past decade despite rising incomes. In Estera, where residential energy is heavily subsidized, household consumption has steadily increased. Analysts suggest that Norvians respond more to price signals, while Estera’s subsidies may have discouraged conservation.
Which of the following can be most reasonably inferred from the information above?
A. The contrasting energy consumption patterns in Norvia and Estera suggest that pricing structures may play a significant role in shaping household responses to energy costs.
B. Despite rising incomes in Norvia, energy consumption per capita has declined, indicating that economic growth alone does not necessarily lead to increased energy use.
C. If Norvia were to implement residential energy subsidies similar to Estera’s, energy consumption would likely return to pre-decline levels.
D. Estera’s increase in household energy use cannot be attributed to factors other than its subsidy policy.
E. While energy pricing appears to influence household consumption patterns, it may not be the sole factor driving differences in energy use between Norvia and Estera.
The passage compares Norvia and Estera and shows a clear contrast. In Norvia, where energy prices are market-based, people have actually used less energy over the past decade, even though their incomes went up. In Estera, where the government subsidizes residential energy, people are using more energy. Analysts suggest this might be because Norvians respond more to price, while Estera’s subsidies reduced the incentive to save energy. So the whole thing is really pointing to this idea that pricing structures might influence how much energy households use.
Now to the options:
A is a direct summary of what the passage is showing. It says pricing structures may play a significant role in shaping household responses to energy costs. That’s exactly what the data shows, and the analysts suggest it too. It’s careful in tone, doesn’t overstate anything, and it stays within what we’re told. This is the right answer.
B is tempting because it talks about how energy use went down in Norvia despite income going up. That’s true based on the passage, but the second part makes it sound like this is some general rule about economic growth and energy use. We only have data from one country, so we can’t jump to that conclusion. It goes a bit beyond the scope.
C is a prediction. It says that if Norvia had Estera-like subsidies, energy use would probably go back up. That might be true in real life, but the passage doesn’t give us any info to support that specific outcome. GMAT inference questions don’t want us to guess what might happen.
D makes a very strong claim. It says Estera’s increased energy use cannot be due to anything besides subsidies. But the passage never rules out other causes. The analysts just say subsidies may have discouraged conservation. That’s not the same as saying it’s the only explanation. So this one’s too extreme.
E sounds balanced and smart, but it’s another classic trap. It says energy pricing might not be the only reason for the difference. In real life that’s probably true, but the passage never talks about any other factor. So this introduces something new that we can’t back up with the passage. Too cautious, and not supported.
Answer: A
A comparison of Norvia and Estera reveals a sharp contrast in household energy use. In Norvia, where prices are market-driven and lightly regulated, households have used less energy over the past decade despite rising incomes. In Estera, where residential energy is heavily subsidized, household consumption has steadily increased. Analysts suggest that Norvians respond more to price signals, while Estera’s subsidies may have discouraged conservation.
Which of the following can be most reasonably inferred from the information above?
A. The contrasting energy consumption patterns in Norvia and Estera suggest that pricing structures may play a significant role in shaping household responses to energy costs.
B. Despite rising incomes in Norvia, energy consumption per capita has declined, indicating that economic growth alone does not necessarily lead to increased energy use.
C. If Norvia were to implement residential energy subsidies similar to Estera’s, energy consumption would likely return to pre-decline levels.
D. Estera’s increase in household energy use cannot be attributed to factors other than its subsidy policy.
E. While energy pricing appears to influence household consumption patterns, it may not be the sole factor driving differences in energy use between Norvia and Estera.
The passage compares Norvia and Estera and shows a clear contrast. In Norvia, where energy prices are market-based, people have actually used less energy over the past decade, even though their incomes went up. In Estera, where the government subsidizes residential energy, people are using more energy. Analysts suggest this might be because Norvians respond more to price, while Estera’s subsidies reduced the incentive to save energy. So the whole thing is really pointing to this idea that pricing structures might influence how much energy households use.
Now to the options:
A is a direct summary of what the passage is showing. It says pricing structures may play a significant role in shaping household responses to energy costs. That’s exactly what the data shows, and the analysts suggest it too. It’s careful in tone, doesn’t overstate anything, and it stays within what we’re told. This is the right answer.
B is tempting because it talks about how energy use went down in Norvia despite income going up. That’s true based on the passage, but the second part makes it sound like this is some general rule about economic growth and energy use. We only have data from one country, so we can’t jump to that conclusion. It goes a bit beyond the scope.
C is a prediction. It says that if Norvia had Estera-like subsidies, energy use would probably go back up. That might be true in real life, but the passage doesn’t give us any info to support that specific outcome. GMAT inference questions don’t want us to guess what might happen.
D makes a very strong claim. It says Estera’s increased energy use cannot be due to anything besides subsidies. But the passage never rules out other causes. The analysts just say subsidies may have discouraged conservation. That’s not the same as saying it’s the only explanation. So this one’s too extreme.
E sounds balanced and smart, but it’s another classic trap. It says energy pricing might not be the only reason for the difference. In real life that’s probably true, but the passage never talks about any other factor. So this introduces something new that we can’t back up with the passage. Too cautious, and not supported.
Answer: A
12 Feb 2026, 05:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel I could not understand why B is wrong. It is stated in B that economic growth alone does not necessarily lead to increased energy use. So no general rule has beeb drawn because of the phrase "does not necessarily". Please explain.
