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

It is currently 24 Oct 2014, 16:09

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:
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 565
Location: SF Bay Area, USA
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink] New post 16 Feb 2005, 19:32
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemical division, which has traditionally contributed about 60 percent of the corporation’s profits. It is therefore encouraging that there is the following evidence that the pharmaceutical division is growing stronger: it contributed 45 percent of the corporation’s profits, up from 20 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 pharmaceutical division’s contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of single, important new product.
(B) In multidivisional corporations that have pharmaceutical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from the pharmaceuticals.
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the pharmaceutical 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 20 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 of the percent of total profits attributable to each.

Please explain your answer clearly.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4318
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 16 Feb 2005, 19:42
B directly attacks the claim that the pharmaceutical division's results are encouraging because the latter did not even reach the 50% profit usual for companies with such a division.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3403
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 2

 [#permalink] New post 16 Feb 2005, 19:49
Like Paul said B

B implies that the results of the Pharmacutical unit is actually subpar compared to other similar companies which have profits in the range of 50%.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 561
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 17 Feb 2005, 00:34
hmmm....B was actually the first i knocked off my scratch paper. i was almost stuck bw C and E.

My choice is C.

My thoughts:

If the company's profits fell in the new year, and the revenue of the pharmaceutical section remained the same (no improvement), then the % contribution of the pharma. section will be higher, making it seem as if the pharma. unit became stronger.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5095
Location: Singapore
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 155 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 17 Feb 2005, 00:40
(B). If most corporations are havign 50% of their profits attributed to their pharmaceutical division, then there is nothign encouraging about having 45% attributed to this corporate's profits.
1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 870
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [1] , given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 17 Feb 2005, 05:26
1
This post received
KUDOS
I will go with 'C'

Say for example the corporation was making 100 million - Traditional split would have been 60 million from chemical division and 20 million from pharmaceutical division and the other 20 from a different division.
If the chemical division contributed only 40 million, the pharmaceutical division contributing the regular 20 million and the other division contributing another 20 million will bring the pool to 80 million, so now the pharma division has contributed 25% instead of the regular 20% - this does not mean that the pharma division is getting stronger becos the pool has become smaller it looks like the pharma division has improved but in reality it is not.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 17 Feb 2005, 06:48
My choice is (C).

(B) talks about other companies in general. The argument is saying that the pharmaceutical division is growing. It is not saying it the greatest in general when compared to the industry as such.

If the contribution of the chemical divison goes down significantly and the contribution of pharmaceutical division remains same then it could be a major portion of total contribution.
For example:
contribution of chemical division is $600 (60%)
contribution of pharmaceutical division is $400 (40%)

Later

chemical division = $200 (33%)
pharma division = $400 (66%)

Here the contribution of pharma has increased from 40% to 66% though its contribution has not changed in terms of actual money.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4318
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 17 Feb 2005, 06:53
anandnk and rthothad, I perfectly agree. One of those percentage/number traps :oops:
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 565
Location: SF Bay Area, USA
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 17 Feb 2005, 08:32
Yup C it is. Good job folks.

I got this one wrong.
Self note:need to watch out for percentage and proportions.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 184
Followers: 1

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

cr [#permalink] New post 09 Apr 2005, 10:47
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemical division, which has traditionally contributed about 60 percent of the corporation’s profits. It is therefore encouraging that there is the following evidence that the pharmaceutical division is growing stronger: it contributed 45 percent of the corporation’s profits, up from 20 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 pharmaceutical division’s contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of single, important new product.
(B) In multidivisional corporations that have pharmaceutical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from the pharmaceuticals.
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the pharmaceutical 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 20 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 of the percent of total profits attributable to each.


PLEASE REFUTE E,,,i guess this is the answer,,,,but the OA i have is different!
_________________

i hate when people do'nt post the OA, it leaves in guessing!!!!

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2350
Followers: 279

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2013, 08:37
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for   [#permalink] 14 Oct 2013, 08:37
    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
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for nakib77 7 27 Oct 2005, 13:17
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
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®.