Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 17:09 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 17:09

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 240
Own Kudos [?]: 81 [23]
Given Kudos: 33
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 2642
Own Kudos [?]: 7775 [6]
Given Kudos: 55
GMAT 2: 780  Q50  V50
Send PM
General Discussion
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 240
Own Kudos [?]: 81 [1]
Given Kudos: 33
Send PM
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 580
Own Kudos [?]: 4324 [1]
Given Kudos: 197
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Send PM
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had $5 million in revenue [#permalink]
1
Kudos
mbafall2011 wrote:
Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had $5 million in revenue, and was featured in 8 major articles in the fashion press. This year, our company’s revenue has practically quadrupled, so we should expect to be featured in at least 20 major articles in the fashion press.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the fashion executive’s reasoning in the above argument?

(A) A competing fashion line was featured more often in the fashion press after its revenues increased.

(B) Five years ago, the company’s revenue was less than $1 million, and the company was not featured in any major articles in the fashion press.

(C) The company’s revenue nearly quadrupled because of the introduction of a fashion line geared for sale in the European fashion capital of Milan; however, most of the fashion press is headquartered domestically in New York.

(D) A major automaker in the region was the subject of twice as many features in auto industry press when the automaker filed for bankruptcy.

(E) The company’s revenue increased dramatically because of the introduction of lower-priced lines sold in nationwide discount chains, greatly reducing the brand’s cachet among fashion journalists.


OE

The executive argues that, if $5M in revenue gets the company 8 articles, $20M in revenue ought to get the company at least 20 articles – that is, that the number of times the company will be featured in the press is proportional to the company’s revenue.

The question asks which of the statements, if true, weighs most heavily against the executive’s reasoning.

A. This statement support’s the executive’s conclusion. Incorrect.

B. This statement provides some support to the idea that revenue is proportional to press. Incorrect.

C. The passage gives no indication that New York fashion journalists would be disinterested in writing about a fashion line that has become successful in the fashionable city of Milan. Incorrect.

D. This statement seems to imply that low revenues can correlate to more feature articles in the press. The statement does not indicate that high revenues could not also lead to more feature articles in the press. Comparing the experience of an automaker to that of a fashion line also introduces the major assumption that the two are analogous. Incorrect.

E. The explanation that revenue increased due to the fashion line’s introducing a discount line sold in stores NOT highly regarded by the fashion press casts serious doubt on the conclusion that the press would feature the line in many more articles than it did last year. Answer choice E is correct.

The answer is E.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2016
Status:Trying...
Posts: 94
Own Kudos [?]: 78 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q51 V27
GMAT 2: 690 Q48 V37
GPA: 4
WE:Consulting (Internet and New Media)
Send PM
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had $5 million in revenue [#permalink]
mbafall2011 wrote:
Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had $5 million in revenue, and was featured in 8 major articles in the fashion press. This year, our company’s revenue has practically quadrupled, so we should expect to be featured in at least 20 major articles in the fashion press.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the fashion executive’s reasoning in the above argument?


(A) A competing fashion line was featured more often in the fashion press after its revenues increased.

(B) Five years ago, the company’s revenue was less than $1 million, and the company was not featured in any major articles in the fashion press.

(C) The company’s revenue nearly quadrupled because of the introduction of a fashion line geared for sale in the European fashion capital of Milan; however, most of the fashion press is headquartered domestically in New York.

(D) A major automaker in the region was the subject of twice as many features in auto industry press when the automaker filed for bankruptcy.

(E) The company’s revenue increased dramatically because of the introduction of lower-priced lines sold in nationwide discount chains, greatly reducing the brand’s cachet among fashion journalists.


Very good question. Had almost marked C as my answer. A,B & D are out of scope.

Nowhere in the stem is it mentioned that the geography is a factor of getting media coverage. Option E however weakens the statement considerably. Option E stands!
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Posts: 2101
Own Kudos [?]: 8808 [0]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had $5 million in revenue [#permalink]
Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had $5 million in revenue, and was featured in 8 major articles in the fashion press. This year, our company’s revenue has practically quadrupled, so we should expect to be featured in at least 20 major articles in the fashion press.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the fashion executive’s reasoning in the above argument?
Type - weaken


(A) A competing fashion line was featured more often in the fashion press after its revenues increased. - Incorrect - this strengthens

(B) Five years ago, the company’s revenue was less than $1 million, and the company was not featured in any major articles in the fashion press.- Irrelevant - If at all this is also a midl strengthener

(C) The company’s revenue nearly quadrupled because of the introduction of a fashion line geared for sale in the European fashion capital of Milan; however, most of the fashion press is headquartered domestically in New York. - incorrect -a few of fashion press might be in Milan or in other parts of Europe and maybe they will cover that. Also , press from NY may cover Milan too

(D) A major automaker in the region was the subject of twice as many features in auto industry press when the automaker filed for bankruptcy. - Irrelevant

(E) The company’s revenue increased dramatically because of the introduction of lower-priced lines sold in nationwide discount chains, greatly reducing the brand’s cachet among fashion journalists. - Correct

Answer E
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 05 Mar 2019
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 25
Send PM
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had $5 million in revenue [#permalink]
I had understood that if we could find the contrary relationship of what it is asked that it could work also to undermine the prompt.
Since it is saying that Not necessarily high revenues go to major articles in the press. It could be that low revenues could make major articles in the press too.
Why am I wrong?
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Posts: 1734
Own Kudos [?]: 5736 [0]
Given Kudos: 3054
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Send PM
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had $5 million in revenue [#permalink]
Expert Reply
LinaZ, we are trying to weaken the argument. The argument, in a nutshell, is saying that correlation = causation (revenue increase = more publications). Although this is a flaw, it is not the flaw they hit on. We are told that the fashion industry didn't really enjoy the latest way the company was making money, so this would weaken the correlation = causation, because their revenues increased, but the value of the brand, in the eyes of the fashion world, decreased. Which answer choice is confusing you?
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 Jul 2015
Posts: 68
Own Kudos [?]: 27 [0]
Given Kudos: 297
Send PM
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had $5 million in revenue [#permalink]
DmitryFarber wrote:
The underlying assumption here is that major articles are directly correlated to revenues. We have no reason to believe that the industry actually works that way, so there are many possible ways to weaken the argument. There are many new ideas that, if true, would break the feeble connection between the premise and the conclusion in this argument. Here are a few that would work:

1) Major articles are typically written about brands that fashion journalists find new and exciting, and sales volume has little influence in such matters.
2) Only revenue from new designs influences what brands get written about, and most of the company's revenue this year is from old designs.
3) Fashion companies with revenue of more than $10 million a year are seen as "too corporate" by fashion journalists, and are not often featured in major articles.
4) No company is featured in more than one major article per month.


I'm sure you can think of plenty more along these lines. So what about C? That seems tempting. If all the journalism action is in New York, maybe efforts in Milan will not get much attention. But we have to be careful here. The choice just says that the fashion press is mostly *headquartered* in New York. That tells us nothing about what coverage they provide in Milan. Besides, a few journalists in Milan might be able to produce 20 major articles on their own! We just don’t have enough information.

E, on the other hand, provides some new information. The company’s new lines are not of great interest to fashion journalists. Therefore they may not be featured in many articles, and we certainly have no reason to believe that they will be featured four times as often as last year. E weakens the argument.


Hi Dmitry, Thanks for the explanation! That was my train of thought as well and so I chose E. However, D seemed to be a good choice too. How do I avoid such trap answers in the future. I just chose E because if it specifically spoke about the fashion industry and so it was a more attractive option than D. If E was not option, would D be a better option than C?
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1115
Own Kudos [?]: 2162 [0]
Given Kudos: 368
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41
WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had $5 million in revenue [#permalink]
(C) The company’s revenue nearly quadrupled because of the introduction of a fashion line geared for sale in the European fashion capital of Milan; however, most of the fashion press is headquartered domestically in New York.
C is incorrect - the initial argument is location agnostic.
D is incorrect - the circumstances of the inverse situation of a completely different industry don't impair the continued trend of Increasing revenues + Increasing articles.

E is correct because it casts doubt on the number of articles and continuation of those articles. If fashion journalists no longer respect the brand then perhaps they cited the change to lower-priced lines in the year of the change and that's it. Or perhaps they shamed the company? Who knows. Either way it suggests the trend is at least less likely to continue.
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17213
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had $5 million in revenue [#permalink]
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had $5 million in revenue [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne