NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 26 Apr 2024, 07:59 It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 07:59
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

In the United States financing of marketing research by

User avatar
feruz77
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 171
Own Kudos [?]: 2318 [1]
Given Kudos: 974
Location: Uzbekistan
Concentration: Finance and accounting
Schools:Johnson, Fuqua, Simon, Mendoza
GPA: 4.0
WE 3: 10
Send PM
In the United States financing of marketing research by [#permalink] New post   25 Oct 2010, 01:58
1
Kudos
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

62% (02:33) correct 38% (02:25) wrong based on 29 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
In the United States financing of marketing research by private firms remained steady as a percentage of sales during the period between 1968 and 1978 (after correcting for inflation). But slowdowns in the growth of marketing productivity also occurred during that period, a fact that refutes the notion that the growth of marketing productivity is directly proportional to the amount invested in marketing research.

Which of the following, if true for the United States, most weakens the argument above?

(A) Federal funds, which constituted a significant portion of the support for marketing research
from 1968 to 1978, fell annually and substantially during that period.
(B) The inflation that occurred between 1968 and 1978, was more severe than leading economists had expected.
(C) Marketing executives generally favor investing an appreciably larger portion of corporate funds in short-term product development than in basic research.
(D) The advertisers who worked in marketing from 1968 to 1978 were, as a group more, experienced in their jobs than were those who worked in the marketing industry during the
previous ten-year period
(E) Corporate financing of marketing research increased, in several of the years immediately following 1978 (after correcting for inflation).



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
A
User avatar
Ellipse
Manager
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 65
Own Kudos [?]: 177 [2]
Given Kudos: 3
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
Schools: INSEAD Jan '13 Kellogg 1YR '15 Sloan '16 IE '15
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
WE:Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Send PM
Re: In the United States financing of marketing research by [#permalink] New post   25 Oct 2010, 03:39
2
Kudos
feruz77 wrote:
In the United States financing of marketing research by private firms remained steady as a percentage of sales during the period between 1968 and 1978 (after correcting for inflation). But slowdowns in the growth of marketing productivity also occurred during that period, a fact that refutes the notion that the growth of marketing productivity is directly proportional to the amount invested in marketing research.

Which of the following, if true for the United States, most weakens the argument above?

(A) Federal funds, which constituted a significant portion of the support for marketing research
from 1968 to 1978, fell annually and substantially during that period.
(B) The inflation that occurred between 1968 and 1978, was more severe than leading economists had expected.
(C) Marketing executives generally favor investing an appreciably larger portion of corporate funds in short-term product development than in basic research.
(D) The advertisers who worked in marketing from 1968 to 1978 were, as a group more, experienced in their jobs than were those who worked in the marketing industry during the
previous ten-year period
(E) Corporate financing of marketing research increased, in several of the years immediately following 1978 (after correcting for inflation).


This is an example of a causal argument.
Premise-The investment in market research has been steady by the private firms during a perticular period still the market productivity has gone down in that preriod.
Author's Conclusion - The notion that the investment in market reasearch in proportional to the market productivity did not hold true for that period.

Here, we need to bring in one more cause which can support the dilution in market productivity so that the conclusion can not stand valid.
The first choice introduces a new cause that shortened the funds invested into market research keeping the investments from private firms steady and hence the notion that martket research is a direct function of investment holds true (because the total funds invested into market research are lesser so the diminising market productivity is expected accroding to the notion that productivity is proportional to investment in research => that notion still holds true contary to the author's conclusion). And at the same time, the autor's conclustion is undermined.
Hence the correct answer is (A)
User avatar
aknine
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 73
Own Kudos [?]: 96 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Send PM
Re: In the United States financing of marketing research by [#permalink] New post   25 Oct 2010, 11:37
I go for A too..
User avatar
gauravnagpal
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 164
Own Kudos [?]: 350 [0]
Given Kudos: 112
Send PM
Re: In the United States financing of marketing research by [#permalink] New post   26 Oct 2010, 20:33
syog wrote:
feruz77 wrote:
In the United States financing of marketing research by private firms remained steady as a percentage of sales during the period between 1968 and 1978 (after correcting for inflation). But slowdowns in the growth of marketing productivity also occurred during that period, a fact that refutes the notion that the growth of marketing productivity is directly proportional to the amount invested in marketing research.

Which of the following, if true for the United States, most weakens the argument above?

(A) Federal funds, which constituted a significant portion of the support for marketing research
from 1968 to 1978, fell annually and substantially during that period.
(B) The inflation that occurred between 1968 and 1978, was more severe than leading economists had expected.
(C) Marketing executives generally favor investing an appreciably larger portion of corporate funds in short-term product development than in basic research.
(D) The advertisers who worked in marketing from 1968 to 1978 were, as a group more, experienced in their jobs than were those who worked in the marketing industry during the
previous ten-year period
(E) Corporate financing of marketing research increased, in several of the years immediately following 1978 (after correcting for inflation).


This is an example of a causal argument.
Premise-The investment in market research has been steady by the private firms during a perticular period still the market productivity has gone down in that preriod.
Author's Conclusion - The notion that the investment in market reasearch in proportional to the market productivity did not hold true for that period.

Here, we need to bring in one more cause which can support the dilution in market productivity so that the conclusion can not stand valid.
The first choice introduces a new cause that shortened the funds invested into market research keeping the investments from private firms steady and hence the notion that martket research is a direct function of investment holds true (because the total funds invested into market research are lesser so the diminising market productivity is expected accroding to the notion that productivity is proportional to investment in research => that notion still holds true contary to the author's conclusion). And at the same time, the autor's conclustion is undermined.
Hence the correct answer is (A)


good explanation ! ..I have highlighted the most important word in the first sentence ...PRIVATE investment ...
but productivity is PRIVATE plus FEDERAL ......

(A) Federal funds, which constituted a significant portion of the support for marketing research
from 1968 to 1978, fell annually and substantially during that period
option a A clearly explains the reason of low marketing productivity .....

By the way I picked D ...:)
User avatar
B
subhashghosh
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 909
Own Kudos [?]: 1173 [0]
Given Kudos: 43
Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: In the United States financing of marketing research by [#permalink] New post   04 Apr 2011, 01:26
The answer is A.
avatar
IEsailor
Manager
Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 109
Own Kudos [?]: 1146 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Concentration: Maritime Financial Services
Schools:Columbia, INSEAD, RSM, LBS
 Q49  V36 GMAT 2: 720  Q48  V41
Send PM
Re: In the United States financing of marketing research by [#permalink] New post   04 Apr 2011, 16:06
A for sure



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: In the United States financing of marketing research by [#permalink]
04 Apr 2011, 16:06
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions