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

It is currently 22 Sep 2014, 04:40

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:
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 238
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 89 [1] , given: 25

GMAT Tests User
Re: Corporate Officer [#permalink] New post 03 Dec 2009, 00:12
1
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.INCORRECT. Even if it is from one product, there is reason to applaud the growth
(B) In multidivisional corporations that have pharmaceutical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from the pharmaceuticals.INCORRECT. Does not make sense
(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.CORRECT. This clearly shows that the reason for the increase in profits is not improvement. Therefore no reason to applaud the pharma division
(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 20 percent share of profits cited itself an improvement over the year before.INCORRECT. 20% is an improvement whichever way you look at it
(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.INCORRECT. Misleading. We are not comparing the two, we are only trying to see whether there is reason to believe that the pharma division has improved or not

Hope this helps
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Posts: 47
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Re: Corporate Officer [#permalink] New post 04 Dec 2009, 17:11
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
Current Student
avatar
Status: Now or never
Joined: 07 Aug 2010
Posts: 326
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GPA: 3.5
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 26

GMAT Tests User Premium Member
Re: Corporate Officer [#permalink] New post 06 Aug 2011, 10:07
I think C only makes sense
_________________

Please press KUDOS if you like my post

Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Time to apply!
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 221
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 660 Q50 V29
GMAT 3: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 166

GMAT Tests User
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink] New post 20 Nov 2011, 19:29
+1 C
_________________

Didn't give up !!! Still Trying!!

Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 818
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
Schools: Ross '17, Duke '16
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 218 [0], given: 43

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink] New post 13 Dec 2011, 01:28
I will go with C
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you :)

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 186
Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, International Business
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 6

GMAT Tests User
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink] New post 26 Dec 2011, 11:22
C
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2011
Posts: 195
Followers: 0

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

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink] New post 03 Apr 2012, 21:41
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
Intern
avatar
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] New post 19 Sep 2012, 01:06
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?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 31 Mar 2014
Posts: 20
Concentration: Operations, General Management
Schools: IIMA (PGPX)
Followers: 0

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

CAT Tests
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink] New post 28 Aug 2014, 08:35
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

Quite simple question based on %.

Conclusion: pharmaceutical division is growing stronger
Premise : Its percentage share/share in profits is growing.

Key: In averages ,percentages, proportions simply remember percent %= (target group)/ (totalgroup) .
Pre assumption : Total group is shrinking , then percent can increase easily even when target group remains constant.

The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the pharmaceutical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for   [#permalink] 28 Aug 2014, 08:35
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
12 Experts publish their posts in the topic Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for feruz77 11 01 Nov 2010, 07:39
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
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  

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 29 posts ] 



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®.