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
This is a complete-the-passage item. The blank follows "because," so the credited completion must supply the reason the argument logically requires, not merely a sentence that fits grammatically. Start by identifying the structure. 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 is that holding selection and price constant rules out two rival explanations, but the rise could still come from a factor that affects every store equally, such as a rise in overall grocery traffic, a competitor closing, or 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 phrase "most of its locations" sets up exactly that test, since some stores added seating and some did not.
(A) is the completion the conclusion requires. If the increase shows up almost entirely where seating was added, with little change where it was not, then the sales rise tracks seating, and the seating-caused-the-rise reading is forced. This is the bridge the argument needs.
(B) simply repeats a premise. Knowing that selection and price did not change removes two alternative explanations, 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 plausible causal mechanism, but it asserts a new fact about how often customers return, something the passage never establishes, and returning more often is not the same as proof that seating drove this specific rise in prepared-meals sales.
(D) anchors on a comparison that sounds relevant because it mentions chains without seating areas, but it is a comparison among competitors, not between Meridian's own seated and unseated stores. What other chains did says nothing about whether Meridian's seating caused Meridian's rise.
(E) is a broad, confident generalization, yet the fact that seating is common at successful chains nationwide does not show that seating produced Meridian's specific increase. It reaches past the scope of the argument.
The right answer is (A).
Pick the theme that suits how you work. You can change it anytime.