|
|
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.
09 May 2026, 10:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
56% (01:25) correct
44%
(01:27)
wrong
based on 18
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
After an area has been hit by a natural disaster, there is often a great demand for plywood for repairing damaged homes. Retailers in the area often raise prices on new shipments of plywood to well above their pre-disaster prices, and some people denounce these retailers for taking advantage of a disaster to make more money on each sheet of plywood they sell. In fact, however, these retailers do not make more money on each sheet of plywood than before the disaster, because transporting the plywood into devastated areas is difficult and expensive, and therefore the plywood's cost to retailers is higher than it was before the disaster.
The clause "the plywood's cost to retailers is higher than it was before the disaster" serves in the argument as which one of the following?
(A) a counter example to a claim
(B) the main conclusion toward which the argument as a whole is directed
(C) a subsidiary conclusion used to support the main conclusion of the argument
(D) an example used to illustrate the implausibility of the position argued against
(E) background information used to provide a context for the argument
The clause "the plywood's cost to retailers is higher than it was before the disaster" serves in the argument as which one of the following?
(A) a counter example to a claim
(B) the main conclusion toward which the argument as a whole is directed
(C) a subsidiary conclusion used to support the main conclusion of the argument
(D) an example used to illustrate the implausibility of the position argued against
(E) background information used to provide a context for the argument
09 May 2026, 12:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
After an area has been hit by a natural disaster, there is often a great demand for plywood for repairing damaged homes. Retailers in the area often raise prices on new shipments of plywood to well above their pre-disaster prices, and some people denounce these retailers for taking advantage of a disaster to make more money on each sheet of plywood they sell. In fact, however, these retailers do not make more money on each sheet of plywood than before the disaster, because transporting the plywood into devastated areas is difficult and expensive, and therefore the plywood's cost to retailers is higher than it was before the disaster.
The clause "the plywood's cost to retailers is higher than it was before the disaster" serves in the argument as which one of the following?
The best way to answer a question like this one, which works like a Boldface question, is to first break down the argument and get a sense of how it works and then go to the answer choices.
Breakdown of the argument:
After an area has been hit by a natural disaster, there is often a great demand for plywood for repairing damaged homes. - background information
Retailers in the area often raise prices on new shipments of plywood to well above their pre-disaster prices - background information
some people denounce these retailers for taking advantage of a disaster to make more money on each sheet of plywood they sell - presents an opinion of "some people"
In fact, however, these retailers do not make more money on each sheet of plywood than before the disaster, - My first take was that this is factual information that supports the implied conclusion that the opinion of "some people" is incorrect. At the same time, it could be that the creator of this question believed this to be the main conclusion of the argument.
because transporting the plywood into devastated areas is difficult and expensive - support for the main conclusion (regardless of whether that conclusion is implied or directly stated by the clause that precedes this one)
the plywood's cost to retailers is higher than it was before the disaster - more support for the main conclusion
We have to be careful not to get the incorrect impression that the final clause is the main conclusion because it is introduced by "therefore. "
"The plywood's cost to retailers is higher than it was before the disaster" is not the main conclusion. It's a statement about how the plywood market works when there is a disaster that is used to support the main conclusion about the amount of money that retailers make on plywood after a disaster.
Answer choice analysis:
(A) a counter example to a claim
The final clause does not present an "example."
Rather, it presents information on what generally occurs with plywood's cost after a disaster.
Eliminate.
(B) the main conclusion toward which the argument as a whole is directed
As discussed above, even though the final clause is at the end of the passage and is introduced by "therefore," it is not the main conclusion.
Rather, the final clause supports the main conclusion.
I believe the main conclusion to be the implied conclusion that the opinion of "some people" is incorrect.
It's also possible the the creator of this question believed the main conclusion to be "In fact, however, these retailers do not make more money on each sheet of plywood than before the disaster."
I find that statement to be more a statement of fact than a conclusion.
Either way, the final clause of the passage is not the main conclusion. So, this choice is incorrect.
Eliminate.
(C) a subsidiary conclusion used to support the main conclusion of the argument
This is the best answer.
I personally find "the plywood's cost to retailers is higher than it was before the disaster," to be a statement of fact.
The creator of this question apparently though it to be a "subsidiary conclusion" supported by the preceding statement "transporting the plywood into devastated areas is difficult and expensive."
Either way, the last clause serves as support for the main conclusion. So, this is the only answer choice that works at all.
Keep.
(D) an example used to illustrate the implausibility of the position argued against
The final clause does not present an "example." Rather, it presents information on what generally occurs with plywood's cost after a disaster.
Also, the point of the argument is not that the opinion of "some people" that retailers take advantage of a disaster to make more money is "implausible," meaning "not having the appearance of truth." The point is that, while that opinion may seem true, it is in fact incorrect.
Eliminate.
(E) background information used to provide a context for the argument
The final clause does not present background information for "context."
It states information used to support the main conclusion.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: C
The clause "the plywood's cost to retailers is higher than it was before the disaster" serves in the argument as which one of the following?
The best way to answer a question like this one, which works like a Boldface question, is to first break down the argument and get a sense of how it works and then go to the answer choices.
Breakdown of the argument:
After an area has been hit by a natural disaster, there is often a great demand for plywood for repairing damaged homes. - background information
Retailers in the area often raise prices on new shipments of plywood to well above their pre-disaster prices - background information
some people denounce these retailers for taking advantage of a disaster to make more money on each sheet of plywood they sell - presents an opinion of "some people"
In fact, however, these retailers do not make more money on each sheet of plywood than before the disaster, - My first take was that this is factual information that supports the implied conclusion that the opinion of "some people" is incorrect. At the same time, it could be that the creator of this question believed this to be the main conclusion of the argument.
because transporting the plywood into devastated areas is difficult and expensive - support for the main conclusion (regardless of whether that conclusion is implied or directly stated by the clause that precedes this one)
the plywood's cost to retailers is higher than it was before the disaster - more support for the main conclusion
We have to be careful not to get the incorrect impression that the final clause is the main conclusion because it is introduced by "therefore. "
"The plywood's cost to retailers is higher than it was before the disaster" is not the main conclusion. It's a statement about how the plywood market works when there is a disaster that is used to support the main conclusion about the amount of money that retailers make on plywood after a disaster.
Answer choice analysis:
(A) a counter example to a claim
The final clause does not present an "example."
Rather, it presents information on what generally occurs with plywood's cost after a disaster.
Eliminate.
(B) the main conclusion toward which the argument as a whole is directed
As discussed above, even though the final clause is at the end of the passage and is introduced by "therefore," it is not the main conclusion.
Rather, the final clause supports the main conclusion.
I believe the main conclusion to be the implied conclusion that the opinion of "some people" is incorrect.
It's also possible the the creator of this question believed the main conclusion to be "In fact, however, these retailers do not make more money on each sheet of plywood than before the disaster."
I find that statement to be more a statement of fact than a conclusion.
Either way, the final clause of the passage is not the main conclusion. So, this choice is incorrect.
Eliminate.
(C) a subsidiary conclusion used to support the main conclusion of the argument
This is the best answer.
I personally find "the plywood's cost to retailers is higher than it was before the disaster," to be a statement of fact.
The creator of this question apparently though it to be a "subsidiary conclusion" supported by the preceding statement "transporting the plywood into devastated areas is difficult and expensive."
Either way, the last clause serves as support for the main conclusion. So, this is the only answer choice that works at all.
Keep.
(D) an example used to illustrate the implausibility of the position argued against
The final clause does not present an "example." Rather, it presents information on what generally occurs with plywood's cost after a disaster.
Also, the point of the argument is not that the opinion of "some people" that retailers take advantage of a disaster to make more money is "implausible," meaning "not having the appearance of truth." The point is that, while that opinion may seem true, it is in fact incorrect.
Eliminate.
(E) background information used to provide a context for the argument
The final clause does not present background information for "context."
It states information used to support the main conclusion.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: C
09 May 2026, 23:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
After an area has been hit by a natural disaster, there is often a great demand for plywood for repairing damaged homes. Retailers in the area often raise prices on new shipments of plywood to well above their pre-disaster prices, and some people denounce these retailers for taking advantage of a disaster to make more money on each sheet of plywood they sell. In fact, however, these retailers do not make more money on each sheet of plywood than before the disaster, because transporting the plywood into devastated areas is difficult and expensive, and therefore the plywood's cost to retailers is higher than it was before the disaster.
The clause "the plywood's cost to retailers is higher than it was before the disaster" serves in the argument as which one of the following?
The main conclusion is that retailers do not make more money on each sheet of plywood than before the disaster. The clause about retailers’ higher cost is supported by the fact that transporting plywood into devastated areas is difficult and expensive. Then that higher-cost claim supports the main conclusion. So it is a subsidiary conclusion.
(A) a counter example to a claim
Wrong. It is not a counterexample; it is part of the reasoning against the claim that retailers make more money per sheet.
(B) the main conclusion toward which the argument as a whole is directed
Wrong. The main conclusion is that retailers do not make more money on each sheet than before.
(C) a subsidiary conclusion used to support the main conclusion of the argument
Correct. The higher-cost claim is inferred from transportation being difficult and expensive, and it supports the conclusion that retailers are not making more money per sheet.
(D) an example used to illustrate the implausibility of the position argued against
Wrong. It is not an example; it is a reason.
(E) background information used to provide a context for the argument
Wrong. It is not merely context. It plays an active logical role in supporting the conclusion.
Answer: (C)
The clause "the plywood's cost to retailers is higher than it was before the disaster" serves in the argument as which one of the following?
The main conclusion is that retailers do not make more money on each sheet of plywood than before the disaster. The clause about retailers’ higher cost is supported by the fact that transporting plywood into devastated areas is difficult and expensive. Then that higher-cost claim supports the main conclusion. So it is a subsidiary conclusion.
(A) a counter example to a claim
Wrong. It is not a counterexample; it is part of the reasoning against the claim that retailers make more money per sheet.
(B) the main conclusion toward which the argument as a whole is directed
Wrong. The main conclusion is that retailers do not make more money on each sheet than before.
(C) a subsidiary conclusion used to support the main conclusion of the argument
Correct. The higher-cost claim is inferred from transportation being difficult and expensive, and it supports the conclusion that retailers are not making more money per sheet.
(D) an example used to illustrate the implausibility of the position argued against
Wrong. It is not an example; it is a reason.
(E) background information used to provide a context for the argument
Wrong. It is not merely context. It plays an active logical role in supporting the conclusion.
Answer: (C)
