Hey guys,
While this question itself isn't written precisely enough to be an actual GMAT question - each of which costs, on average, around $8,000 to create using a team of PhDs if I remember correctly, so don't feel badly if your creations don't quite work perfectly - I think it's a great exercise in thinking within a GMAT mindframe:
1) Bunuel's point was my first thought...there are 900 total 3-digit numbers, so the denominator would have to be a factor of 900, and only A works. If you're thinking that way, you're in great shape - the less math you have to do to guarantee the answer, the better!
2) There are a few different interpretations of the question, but I firmly believe that thinking of all of them is a great way to ensure that you don't make assumptions when you see actual questions, so please think away!
I took "exactly two consecutive primes as digits" to mean that the 3 digits are "exactly" created by two consecutive primes. That way, you'd only have 7 and 11 as possible primes, as you'd need two consecutive primes to total 3 digits - one 2-digit (11) and one 1-digit (7) number.
You could also look at it as meaning that each prime accounts for one digit, in which case your possibilities are 2, 3, 5, and 7 (the one-digit primes). In that case you'd need to consider that 2 only gives you one option (3) for its consecutive digit, but 3 has two (2 and 5) because it has neighboring consecutive primes on either side.
There are other interpretations you could make, too (which is why this question would need to be reworked to make it more precise), but part of the GMAT study process is understanding the different variations that the test could take on each type of problem, so I fully embrace the idea of creating problems like this and then looking at how they could be tweaked to take different forms. Right now we're all "thinking like the test maker", which is a great way to get some insight into the way these questions will try to trick you.