PrepLattice
Sign in
VerbalCritical Reasoning

Free GMAT Critical Reasoning Practice Question

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.

A regional grocery chain is debating whether to sell its house-brand snacks nationwide. Some of the chain's managers warn that the rollout would disappoint: once shoppers in unfamiliar markets encounter the house brand, sales will drop, because those shoppers strongly favor established national brands. This concern is not well founded. In the three regions where the chain already stocks the house-brand snacks, the brand's share of snack sales has climbed steadily over the past two years. Shoppers in those regions had no prior loyalty to the house brand either, yet they came to choose it regularly.

In the argument as a whole, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

Five fresh questions every day, your progress tracked, every miss explained. Free with an account.

Start Today's Free Set

Answer & Explanation

Correct answer

A

This is a boldface role question, so first find the argument's main conclusion, then name what each bolded portion does relative to it. The unbolded sentence "This concern is not well founded" is the author's main conclusion. The first boldface states the managers' prediction (sales will drop), which is precisely the concern the author calls unfounded, so the first portion is a prediction the argument sets out to discredit. The second boldface reports two years of rising share in regions that already carry the brand; the author uses it to show the prediction is wrong, so it is evidence offered against that prediction. (A) names both roles correctly.

(B) treats the first portion as supporting evidence and the second as the conclusion, but it inverts both: the first is the rejected prediction and the second is counter-evidence, not the conclusion. (C) calls the first portion the conclusion, but the actual conclusion is the unbolded sentence; the first portion is the view the author opposes. (D) uses opposition-flavored language yet reverses the direction: the argument disputes the first prediction rather than endorsing it, and the second finding refutes the prediction rather than being conceded against the author. (E) swaps the labels, calling the first portion evidence when it is the forecast itself, and saying the argument accepts that forecast when it rejects it.