|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2009
Posts: 115
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 3
|
Re: Corporate Officer [#permalink]
 02 Dec 2009, 15:45
Guys, please tag the source!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Posts: 47
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Corporate Officer [#permalink]
04 Dec 2009, 18:11
imo C
conclusion: It is therefore encouraging that there is the following evidence that the pharmaceutical division is growing stronger (not stronger than chemical devison) i belive in this case it would b E
but judging by the previuse year figure , it just growing stronger...
to come to conclusion officer just comparies figures ... not divisions with each other
|
|
|
|
|
|
McCombs Thread Master
Status: Now or never
Joined: 07 Aug 2010
Posts: 320
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GPA: 3.5
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
71
[0], given: 25
|
Re: Corporate Officer [#permalink]
06 Aug 2011, 11:07
I think C only makes sense
_________________
Please press KUDOS if you like my post
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: Trying to get 720+ - DIDN'T GIVE UP !!
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 183
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
GMAT 1: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 660 Q50 V29
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 95
|
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]
20 Nov 2011, 20:29
+1 C
_________________
Didn't give up !!! Still Trying!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 787
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Finance
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 18
Kudos [?]:
80
[0], given: 35
|
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]
13 Dec 2011, 02:28
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 186
Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, International Business
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 6
|
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]
26 Dec 2011, 12:22
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2011
Posts: 188
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 6
|
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]
03 Apr 2012, 22:41
I find C & E equally good....
C states pharma doesn't need to perform good to get given result.
E states we don't know company has only these 2 divisions.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 24 May 2012
Posts: 13
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 4
|
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]
19 Sep 2012, 02:06
I can understand why C is correct. But what's wrong with D?
Say the profit last year was 100$, then 20$ was the profit from pharma
Say the profit this year is 10$, then 45% is only 4.5$.
So with this data we cannot conclude that pharma section is growing. So what D states is right, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for
[#permalink]
19 Sep 2012, 02:06
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
