PrepLattice is an independent test-preparation service and is not affiliated with or endorsed by GMAC, the organization that administers the GMAT. GMAT and GMAT Focus are trademarks of GMAC, used here only to name the exam this question is designed to prepare you for.
At Meridian Grocers, sales of prepared meals have risen sharply over the past year, even though the chain has not expanded its prepared-meals selection or lowered its prices. During the same period, the chain opened in-store seating areas at MOST of its locations. Management has concluded that the new seating areas are responsible for the rise in prepared-meals sales, because ________.
Five fresh questions every day, your progress tracked, every miss explained. Free with an account.
Correct answer
A
Complete-the-passage. The blank follows "because," so the credited completion must supply the reason the argument logically requires, not merely a sentence that fits grammatically. Identify the structure first. Conclusion: the new seating areas are responsible for the rise in prepared-meals sales. Premises: sales rose, the selection did not grow, prices did not fall, and seating was added at most (not all) locations. The gap: holding selection and price constant rules out two rival explanations, but the rise could still come from a factor that affects every store equally (more grocery traffic overall, a competitor closing, a general trend toward prepared meals). To force the conclusion that seating specifically caused the rise, the completion must tie the rise to seating. The clause "most of its locations" sets up exactly that test: some stores added seating and some did not.
(A) is the completion the conclusion requires: if the increase shows up almost only where seating was added, with little change where it was not, then seating tracks the rise and the seating-causes-sales reading is forced. This is the bridge the stem demands.
(B) simply repeats a premise. Knowing that selection and price did not change removes two alternatives, but it never connects the rise to seating in particular, so it cannot be the reason that licenses the conclusion. It is tempting because restating a given fact feels safe.
(C) reads like a causal mechanism and is easy to accept on its confident phrasing, but it asserts a new fact about how often customers return, which the passage never establishes, and increased return frequency is not the same as proof that seating drove this rise in prepared-meals sales.
(D) anchors on a comparison that sounds on-point because it mentions chains "without seating," but it is about competitors, not Meridian's own seated and unseated stores. What other chains did says nothing about whether Meridian's seating caused Meridian's rise.
(E) is an assertive, broad generalization that feels authoritative, yet the fact that seating is common at successful chains nationwide does not show that seating produced Meridian's specific increase. It extends past the scope of the argument.
The right answer is (A).
Pick the theme that suits how you work. You can change it anytime.