Another way to look at this one with a repeatable strategy for problems that look too big to solve...
A helpful strategy with big numbers and particularly with exponents is to see if you can find patterns. Here, you don't want to calculate all those squares from 16^2 to 30^2, but since they gave you the relationship to the first 15 squares there's good evidence that there would be some relationship between the ones you're asked to calculate and the ones they gave you. So say you just used a small set of 5 of them...not terrible to calculate, and did:
16^2 = 256
17^2 = 289 (NOTE: you can do this pretty easily by saying that 16^2 = 16*16, so to get to 16*17 you add one more 16 to get 272, and then to get from 16*17 to 17*17 you add one more 17 to get 289)
18^2 = 324
20^2 = 400 (I'll explain why I skipped 19^2 in a second)
Here I'm just jotting down a few easy-ish to calculate numbers to see if I can find a pattern. So then lay these against the first five squares to see:
16^2 vs. 1^2 = 256 vs. 1, so a difference of 255
17^2 vs. 2^2 = 289 vs. 4...which is a difference of 285 (hmm...both end in 5s at least)
18^2 vs. 3^2 = 324 vs. 9...which is a difference of 315
20^2 vs. 5^2 = 400 vs. 25 which is a difference of 375
So...just by testing enough numbers to see if you have a pattern, you can see that the differences between the first square of the old set and the first of the new, the second vs. second, etc. go up 30 every time, from 255 to 285 to 315 to 345 to 375, and with that many data points you can assume (even if it's not guaranteed...you don't want to spend more than 3-4 minutes on this thing on test day) that that pattern will hold. So you can keep counting up by 30s to the 8th term (the middle of the 15 terms) to see that it will be 465, and then know that your sum will be the original sum of 1240 plus the sum of the differences from old to new (so 15 * 465), and that adds up to the correct 8215.
A few clarification points here:
-I skipped 19^2 because I knew 20^2 easily and I only cared about 19^2 if it was an easy to recognize pattern with the other numbers. Once I saw that the differences all ended in 5 and were evenly spaced, then I was interested b/c I knew I had a pattern I could use.
-I looked for the difference between terms in the "old" set (1^2 - 15^2) and the new because they gave us the sum of the "old" set. That's a recognition thing, kind of playing the GMAT's trends - there are a few problems out there where they base a sequence or series on another one, and then give you a piece of information about the one they based it on. Very frequently in those cases, the path is to "fill in the gap" by calculating the difference between the sets and not by trying to calculate the new one alone. So that was a little bit of "I've seen this game before and here's how it's usually played..." to hopefully find a path.
Anyway - just thought that might be interesting since I just used that exact strategy to solve this one in ~2:30 or so while playing around in here on my lunch break (ah, the fascinating life of a GMAT teacher). I always like when I can apply the strategies I tell students to use (when in doubt see if you can jot out a few terms and find a pattern, in this case) and see it work just as advertised!