Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 21 Aug 2014, 16:39

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
6 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 213
Location: Uzbekistan
Schools: Johnson, Fuqua, Simon, Mendoza
WE 3: 10
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 192 [6] , given: 974

GMAT Tests User
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink] New post 01 Nov 2010, 07:39
6
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

51% (02:26) correct 49% (01:33) wrong based on 238 sessions
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our pharmaceutical division, which has traditionally contributed about 70 percent of the corporation’s profits. It is therefore encouraging that there is the following evidence that the chemical division is growing stronger: it contributed 25 percent of the corporation’s profit up from 10 percent the previous year.

On the basis of the facts stated which of the following is the best critique of the evidence presented above?

(A) The increase in the chemical division’s contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of a single, important new product.
(B) In multi-divisional corporations that have chemical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from chemicals
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved.
(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 25 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before.
(E) The information cited does not make it possible to compare the performance of the chemical and pharmaceutical divisions in terms of the percent of total profits attributed to each.



If it is a good question, I expect your KUDOS!!!
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
Posts: 120
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 157 [1] , given: 169

Re: pharmaceutical division versus chemical division [#permalink] New post 27 Jan 2011, 04:19
1
This post received
KUDOS
What is the source of this question?

IMHO the answer is D.
we need to see whether the amount of profit generated is greater then the last year's. Since there is a chance that increase to 25% of the overal profits is simply that the pharmacaeutical's division's profits went sharply down. in this case it may even be the case that chemicals profits are down as well, but no as much as pahrmaceutical
_________________

I will greatly appreciate your KUDOS my friends!

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Dec 2010
Posts: 214
WE 1: 4 yr IT
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 26

Re: pharmaceutical division versus chemical division [#permalink] New post 27 Jan 2011, 06:10
C easily. A, D and E are irrelevant. between C and D , C is more direct.
_________________

this time, we play for keeps

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 101
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 18

Re: pharmaceutical division versus chemical division [#permalink] New post 27 Jan 2011, 07:57
I cannot see why C rather than D?
_________________

Hung M.Tran
Faculty of Banking and Finance,
National Economics University of Vietnam


Follow me on Twitter : http://twitter.com/AndyTranHung

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 95
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Re: pharmaceutical division versus chemical division [#permalink] New post 28 Jan 2011, 11:11
his question is crazy.... i chose d but is its considered the cr in mathematical aspect, c sounds correct
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 20

Re: pharmaceutical division versus chemical division [#permalink] New post 13 Jan 2012, 23:49
andysimple wrote:
I cannot see why C rather than D?


The entire argument is about profits of this year and previous year and hence we need to take previous year's no.s as the base. There is no need to go beyond that. And hence, D is irrelevant for the discussion.

Coming to C:

Conclusion is the P division is doing great and we need to prove this wrong. As the no.s are undisputable facts, we need to find some other reason for the proof. In this context, C wins clearly.
_________________

-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti

Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Bunuel's fan!
Joined: 08 Jul 2011
Posts: 238
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 55

Re: pharmaceutical division versus chemical division [#permalink] New post 15 May 2012, 05:14
q10nik wrote:
What is the source of this question?


I believe this is an Gmat prep question.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Status: Trying to crack GMAT
Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 39
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Technology
GMAT Date: 07-11-2012
GPA: 3.82
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 4

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink] New post 19 May 2012, 23:34
Well, I chose C, but I am kinda getting confused why people are saying D "could also" be correct. Doesn't the statement in D go against the facts..since the growth was from 10% to 25% ? So shouldn't we eliminate D outright?
_________________

“When I was young I observed that nine out of ten things I did were failures, so I did ten times more work.” ~ Bernard Shaw


Kudos me if I helped you in any way.

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 201
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 31 [1] , given: 22

GMAT Tests User
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink] New post 21 May 2012, 02:50
1
This post received
KUDOS
(A) The increase in the chemical division’s contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of a single, important new product. - Irrelevant information - Incorrect
(B) In multi-divisional corporations that have chemical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from chemicals - Irrelevant information - Incorrect
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved. - Just because the profit percentage has increased does not mean the performance of the division improved. Correct option
(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 25 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before. - It has been already referred in the passage which states that profit share has increased from 10 to 25% - Incorrect
(E) The information cited does not make it possible to compare the performance of the chemical and pharmaceutical divisions in terms of the percent of total profits attributed to each. - The passage does not compare both the divisions but states the change in share of profit attributed to each - Irrelevant and incorrect

Hope this helps.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 49
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 1

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink] New post 22 May 2012, 06:40
sidhu09 wrote:
(A) The increase in the chemical division’s contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of a single, important new product. - Irrelevant information - Incorrect
(B) In multi-divisional corporations that have chemical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from chemicals - Irrelevant information - Incorrect
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved. - Just because the profit percentage has increased does not mean the performance of the division improved. Correct option
(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 25 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before. - It has been already referred in the passage which states that profit share has increased from 10 to 25% - Incorrect
(E) The information cited does not make it possible to compare the performance of the chemical and pharmaceutical divisions in terms of the percent of total profits attributed to each. - The passage does not compare both the divisions but states the change in share of profit attributed to each - Irrelevant and incorrect

Hope this helps.


I agree with your reasoning. I have doubt for B. You say that it is irrelevant. Consider this: Normally the share of chemical divisions in the profits of the org. is more than half. Here, the share has reached only quarter stage. It tells that the chemical division is not performing well. A contender choice. How can it be irrelevant at all?
Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 2030
Followers: 486

Kudos [?]: 1988 [2] , given: 30

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink] New post 09 May 2013, 09:09
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
feruz77 wrote:
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our pharmaceutical division, which has traditionally contributed about 70 percent of the corporation’s profits. It is therefore encouraging that there is the following evidence that the chemical division is growing stronger: it contributed 25 percent of the corporation’s profit up from 10 percent the previous year.

On the basis of the facts stated which of the following is the best critique of the evidence presented above?

(A) The increase in the chemical division’s contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of a single, important new product.
(B) In multi-divisional corporations that have chemical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from chemicals
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved.
(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 25 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before.
(E) The information cited does not make it possible to compare the performance of the chemical and pharmaceutical divisions in terms of the percent of total profits attributed to each.

holidevil wrote:
I agree with your reasoning. I have doubt for B. You say that it is irrelevant. Consider this: Normally the share of chemical divisions in the profits of the org. is more than half. Here, the share has reached only quarter stage. It tells that the chemical division is not performing well. A contender choice. How can it be irrelevant at all?

Dear holidevil
Let's say (B) is true ---- does this mean that, in companies that have chemical divisions, the other divisions (such as pharmaceutical) are anemic? By contrast, the company in this question, in addition to having a chemical division as robust as any out there, also has other divisions that are even stronger, unlike the other chemical companies? In other words, this fact may imply that this company's chemical division is weak, or it may not. We simply don't have enough facts to decide. Remember, all we are comparing are percents. It's quite possible that 15% of one company is considerably more than 60% of another company. In CR terms, all this makes (B) irrelevant --- any fact which could be a strengthener or could be a weaker, pending more as yet unknown facts, is irrelevant. Does this make sense?
fameatop wrote:
Hi Mike,
I am not able to understand how come option C is correct & D is incorrect. Can you kindly throw some light on the same.
Regards, Fame

Dear Fame
This is a great CR question, and I think the real sticking point is between (C) & (D). It comes down to exact wording. Let's look at the exact wording.
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved.
(C) draws the crucial distinction between percentage of profits and actual performance, actual numerical profits. That's the ambiguity at stake in this question. Just because percent goes up does NOT mean that overall profits went up. In particular, if the pharmaceutical division, which previously constituted 70% of the profits, had a sour year, profits for the whole company would be down, and all the smaller divisions would occupy a much larger percentage of that much smaller pie. This goes to the core of the problem.
(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 25 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before.
This answer choice is about "percent share of the profits" --- this year was 25%, and was this an improvement over last year's percent share in the profits? Well, in fact, the prompt explicitly tells us --- the previous year's share of the profits for the chemical division was 10%, so in terms of percent share in the profits, the 25% is a clear improvement. This answer choice says zilch about the important distinction between percent of profits and actual numerical profits.
Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for   [#permalink] 09 May 2013, 09:09
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for prude_sb 4 25 Apr 2006, 18:39
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for myc2004 4 12 Apr 2006, 02:55
Experts publish their posts in the topic Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for karun_aggarwal 4 09 Apr 2005, 10:48
1 Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for nocilis 10 16 Feb 2005, 19:32
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for chunjuwu 1 11 Dec 2004, 18:06
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.