Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 16 Jan 2017, 19:18

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1628
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 42

Kudos [?]: 1053 [3] , given: 2

Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2009, 10:13
3
KUDOS
8
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

57% (02:24) correct 43% (01:31) wrong based on 324 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 314
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 318 [5] , given: 9

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2009, 14:18
5
KUDOS
sagarsabnis wrote:
@ubsCSG how could u assume that the overall profit haven't changed. The passage strictly mentions about the stats of pharma and chemical. Could u please explain in detail why the answer cannot be E?

In this kind of questions is useful to pick numbers to prove the answer choice.

Let's say that last year the company had $100 profit chemical division --->$60 --->60%
pharmaceutical division --->$20 ---->20% others ------>$20

This year the company has $45 profit pharmaceutical division --->$20 ----> 45%
chemical division ---> $15 --->33% others ------>$10 ---> 22%

what the passage says is that the pharmaceutical division is growing faster, well this is not true since its profits haven't increased.
This is way C is correct. You don't need to assume that the total profits haven't changed, in fact if they don't change the passage is true.

(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

this means that you don't have the percentage of the chemical division. Do you need the percentage of the chemical division to conclude that the pharmaceutical division is growing stronger?

the author did not compare the performance but rather said that the pharmaceutical division is growing stronger. It's obvious that the chemical division performed worse that the pharmaceutical division last year but that is not the conclusion of the argument.
Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 235
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 233 [3] , given: 25

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2009, 00:12
3
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
Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 221
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 210 [1] , given: 2

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 10:31
1
KUDOS
IMO C

Argument - Pharmaceutical Division is Growing Stronger (criticize or weaken the argument)

A - irrelevant to the argument
B - irrelevant to the argument
D - We are not interested in the 20% from the year before, only the 45% from this year
E - We are not interested in comparing the two (see argument)

C - This definitely weakens the argument as it suggests company profits overall could be down. They might also be down in absolute \$ amount, just a less % than the other divisions.
Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [1] , given: 0

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 15:56
1
KUDOS
IMO C, As even if % Contributon is increasing, doesn't mean that Actual value of is increasing.

WHAT OA?
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 281
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 355 [0], given: 18

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2009, 12:39
IMO E
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 339
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 14

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2009, 15:45
I will go with E , what is your doubt here

A, B and C - makes no sense
D- up from 20 percent the previous year. So, D is wrong
_________________

Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 849
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 310 [0], given: 106

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 03:07
I will go for C.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Intern
Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

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

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 06:15
But this is strange because D and E are both correct.
D - percent go from 20 to 45, however it is from total. If total is 100 milion in the first year and 1 million in the next year, then 20% of 100 million is more than 45% of 1 million. So we do not know if improved
E - We do not know to what percentage chemical department drop so we can't compare

Explanation?
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 281
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 355 [0], given: 18

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 12:05
what is the OA
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 299
Concentration: Nonprofit, Strategy
GPA: 3.42
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 9

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2009, 17:01
hard one between C and D...would go with C, as it critiques that even if pharmaceutical division doesn't increase its performance but will increase its performance share due to the decrease in chemical division.

as for D, it says 20% up, but in D it didn't mention whether if it is refering to unclear to determine the share of profit increase or performance increase....so can't choose D.
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 357
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 32

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 00:59
i go with C.
Manager
Joined: 30 May 2009
Posts: 218
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 0

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 02:27
Stuck between C and D. I would go with D. Whats the OA?
Intern
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 33
Followers: 0

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

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 11:56
IMO E.

C only states that P profit is increasing. does not critique the conclusion that P profit is encouraging. Only E critique the conclusion by stating that P profit cannot be compared with C profit; therefore, P profit is not encouraging since we can't compare the two profits
Intern
Joined: 30 Sep 2008
Posts: 36
Followers: 0

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

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2009, 10:59
C is suggests that pharmaceutical department contributed more percentage of profit but its performance had not been improved. So it calls into question that did this department is growing stronger as stated in the conclusion.

SO I think it's C
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 51
Followers: 1

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

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2009, 11:58
C seems to be correct. Pharmaceutical share of sales could go up even if the total company sales slump. This is the fallacy of ratios and proportions. If the total sales decrease and the pharma sales stay where they were, even then, the % of pharma sales will go up. % increase is not the same thing as absolute increase!
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 281
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 355 [0], given: 18

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2009, 23:22
Went on to search tha answer.....OA is C.........but its pretty tough...no doubt its a CAT ( IIM) ques..But pls someone explain why E is wrong...what is use of 60% of chemical division then...
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 314
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 318 [0], given: 9

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 01:33
rohansherry wrote:
Went on to search tha answer.....OA is C.........but its pretty tough...no doubt its a CAT ( IIM) ques..But pls someone explain why E is wrong...what is use of 60% of chemical division then...

(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.

is the author using the performance of both companies to draw his conclusion? I'd say no
Intern
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

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

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 02:22
i would choose c- since the passage assumes that total profits have not changed - however if total's profits have reduced... it is possible for the pharmecuital division to contribute more without growing.
Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Manchester UK
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 384 [0], given: 6

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2009, 13:33
@ubsCSG how could u assume that the overall profit haven't changed. The passage strictly mentions about the stats of pharma and chemical. Could u please explain in detail why the answer cannot be E?
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for   [#permalink] 02 Dec 2009, 13:33

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 32 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Due to budget constraints for the upcoming year, the corporate office 1 22 Nov 2015, 10:09
21 Over the last ten years, the Office of the Provost has 13 27 Mar 2012, 08:40
27 Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for 19 01 Nov 2010, 07:39
Corporate officers and directors commonly buy and sell, for 7 27 Dec 2007, 03:28
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for 7 19 Jul 2007, 11:52
Display posts from previous: Sort by