Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 13:36 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 13:36

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:
Difficulty: 505-555 Levelx   Weakenx            
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 634
Own Kudos [?]: 3224 [52]
Given Kudos: 6
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Posts: 112
Own Kudos [?]: 927 [32]
Given Kudos: 13
Concentration: Consulting
 Q49  V40
Send PM
General Discussion
Intern
Intern
Joined: 24 Feb 2018
Posts: 26
Own Kudos [?]: 25 [2]
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GPA: 3.35
WE:Military Officer (Military & Defense)
Send PM
Board of Directors
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Status:QA & VA Forum Moderator
Posts: 6072
Own Kudos [?]: 4689 [2]
Given Kudos: 463
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE:Business Development (Commercial Banking)
Send PM
Re: Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership fi [#permalink]
2
Kudos
seekmba wrote:
Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership five years ago, is clear evidence that businesses will always fare better under private than under public ownership.

Julia: Wrong. A close look at the records shows that X has been profitable since the appointment of a first-class manager, which happened while X was still in the pubic sector.

Which of the following best describes the weak point in Ross’s claim on which Julia’s response focuses?


(A) The evidence Ross cites comes from only a single observed case, that of Company X.

(B) The profitability of Company X might be only temporary.

(C) Ross’s statement leaves open the possibility that the cause he cites came after the effect he attributes to it.

(D) No mention is made of companies that are partly government owned and partly privately owned.

(E) No exact figures are given for the current profits of Company X


Ross : PRofitability of X = Change from Public ---------> Pvt Ownership ( 5 Years Ago), Thus , Pvt Ownership = Better.
Julia : Wrong , since the Firm since the appointment of a first-class manager resulted in Profitability & the manager was appointed during Public Ownership.

(A) single observed case ... of Company X : Irrelevant
(B) Only Temporary : Not our concern, out of scope.
(D) partly government owned and partly privately owned companies : Out of scope & Irrelevant.
(E) figures about the current profits of Company X : Out of context and Irrelevant.

Correct Answer choice (C) states that change in Ownership came after the appointment of first Class Manager.
IIM School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1261
Own Kudos [?]: 1238 [1]
Given Kudos: 1207
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Other)
Send PM
Re: Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership fi [#permalink]
1
Kudos
gmat1393 generis aragonn VeritasKarishma nightblade354 Abhishek009

I am stuck between A and C.

Quote:
Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership five years ago, is clear evidence that businesses will always fare better under private than under public ownership.

Ross's claim: businesses will always fare better under private than under public ownership.
Ross's evidence: 5 years ago, ownership changed from public to private. Hence cause (private ownership) -> effect (higher profits)

Quote:
Julia: Wrong. A close look at the records shows that X has been profitable since the appointment of a first-class manager, which happened while X was still in the pubic sector.

Julia disputes Ross's claim. Her evidence: A closer look suggests that not ownership, but how manager managed the show contributed to profits.

Quote:
Which of the following best describes the weak point in Ross’s claim on which Julia’s response focuses?

What is weakener in Ross's claim?

Quote:
(A) The evidence Ross cites comes from only a single observed case, that of Company X.

Yes, see jump from a particular company X to all general businesses.

Quote:
(B) The profitability of Company X might be only temporary.

Irrelavant. Time duration of company is not our agenda, the cause leading to profits is the one where are concerned with.

Quote:
(C) Ross’s statement leaves open the possibility that the cause he cites came after the effect he attributes to it.

I found too complex to comprehend what this option is saying. There is no sequence of cause that Julia pointed out as flaw.
In fact, she pointed out alternate cause (better management) than ownership.

Quote:
(D) No mention is made of companies that are partly government owned and partly privately owned.

Irrelavant to scope of argument.

Quote:
(E) No exact figures are given for the current profits of Company X

We are not concerned with exact profit numbers, we are concerned with the cause that led to higher profits.
VP
VP
Joined: 09 Mar 2016
Posts: 1160
Own Kudos [?]: 1017 [2]
Given Kudos: 3851
Send PM
Re: Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership fi [#permalink]
2
Kudos
adkikani wrote:
gmat1393 generis aragonn VeritasKarishma nightblade354 Abhishek009

I am stuck between A and C.

Quote:
Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership five years ago, is clear evidence that businesses will always fare better under private than under public ownership.

Ross's claim: businesses will always fare better under private than under public ownership.
Ross's evidence: 5 years ago, ownership changed from public to private. Hence cause (private ownership) -> effect (higher profits)

Quote:
Julia: Wrong. A close look at the records shows that X has been profitable since the appointment of a first-class manager, which happened while X was still in the pubic sector.

Julia disputes Ross's claim. Her evidence: A closer look suggests that not ownership, but how manager managed the show contributed to profits.

Quote:
Which of the following best describes the weak point in Ross’s claim on which Julia’s response focuses?

What is weakener in Ross's claim?

Quote:
(A) The evidence Ross cites comes from only a single observed case, that of Company X.

Yes, see jump from a particular company X to all general businesses.

Quote:
(B) The profitability of Company X might be only temporary.

Irrelavant. Time duration of company is not our agenda, the cause leading to profits is the one where are concerned with.

Quote:
(C) Ross’s statement leaves open the possibility that the cause he cites came after the effect he attributes to it.

I found too complex to comprehend what this option is saying. There is no sequence of cause that Julia pointed out as flaw.
In fact, she pointed out alternate cause (better management) than ownership.

Quote:
(D) No mention is made of companies that are partly government owned and partly privately owned.

Irrelavant to scope of argument.

Quote:
(E) No exact figures are given for the current profits of Company X

We are not concerned with exact profit numbers, we are concerned with the cause that led to higher profits.



@
seekmba wrote:
Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership five years ago, is clear evidence that businesses will always fare better under private than under public ownership.

Julia: Wrong. A close look at the records shows that X has been profitable since the appointment of a first-class manager, which happened while X was still in the pubic sector.

Which of the following best describes the weak point in Ross’s claim on which Julia’s response focuses?


(A) The evidence Ross cites comes from only a single observed case, that of Company X.

(B) The profitability of Company X might be only temporary.

(C) Ross’s statement leaves open the possibility that the cause he cites came after the effect he attributes to it.

(D) No mention is made of companies that are partly government owned and partly privately owned.

(E) No exact figures are given for the current profits of Company X




@adkikani


To make it short:

Ross says that company run under private ownership brought MORE profits than under PUBLIC OWNERSHIP (public ownership means that some govermental entity was managing the company, let it be Ministry of transportation that runs Railway company)

Julia says claims that the company became profitable since the times when the Railway company was managed by government and at that time the FIRST CLASS MANAGER was appointed (public ownership) in other words the railway was managed at first by government and than it was acquired by some businessman.

All you have to do is to strengthen Julia`s claim

C clearly states Ross’s statement leaves open the possibility that the cause he cites came after the effect he attributes to it.


C says that the Roos`s claim misses the possibility that Railway company became more profitable DUE to the fact that it was run INITIALLY under public ownership

:)
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1267
Own Kudos [?]: 5650 [0]
Given Kudos: 416
Send PM
Re: Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership fi [#permalink]
adkikani - For understanding this situation you should think from jim's POV. Think what Jim has missed. Where he can go wrong. While you have to assume that julia is right all the way. let see the sequence.

So company was
1. public but in loss, 2. public but in profit cause of first class manager, 3. private and profitable uptill now.

I think you can see now that hoe C can be fit in. Jim thought ignored the fact that company was profitable evan before going private.

Hope you can visualize, that is the key in GMAT CR. Let me know if you need further help.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1267
Own Kudos [?]: 5650 [0]
Given Kudos: 416
Send PM
Re: Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership fi [#permalink]
dave13 - Respectfully, I disagree with the fact "All you have to do is to strengthen Julia`s claim."

I think there is a fine line between "the weak point in Ross’s claim on which Julia’s response focuses?" and "All you have to do is to strengthen Julia`s claim.". Definitely these two overlaps but not the same things. Consider this situation.

The first class manager on his joining day announced that he will take the company X private by end of the quarter. Now same choice is giving a different meaning. All I am saying is that with this pre-thinking you can fall in a trap.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 11 May 2018
Posts: 124
Own Kudos [?]: 83 [0]
Given Kudos: 287
Send PM
Re: Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership fi [#permalink]
Quote:
Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership five years ago, is clear evidence that businesses will always fare better under private than under public ownership.
Julia: Wrong. A close look at the records shows that X has been profitable since the appointment of a first-class manager, which happened while X was still in the pubic sector.

Which of the following best describes the weak point in Ross’s claim on which Julia’s response focuses?
Here both are talking about the same company X.
Ross says that private ownership was better than public Because of current profits.
Julia says that profits we because of some manager who was appointed when company X was a public company.

Quote:
(A) The evidence Ross cites comes from only a single observed case, that of Company X.

we're talking about one company only and one case,But julias response was on not only on the profits but also on the management.
Eliminate A
Quote:
(B) The profitability of Company X might be only temporary.

Nowhere it was mentioned in the argument.
Irrelevant.Eliminate B
Quote:
(C) Ross’s statement leaves open the possibility that the cause he cites came after the effect he attributes to it.

this is what exactly happened in the arguments. julia argued about the appointment that happened 5 years ago.
Keep it.
Quote:
(D) No mention is made of companies that are partly government owned and partly privately owned.

Irrelevant.We just talked about X.
Eliminate it
Quote:
(E) No exact figures are given for the current profits of Company X

irrelevant.
Eliminate it.
Answer is C
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 31 Jan 2020
Posts: 4413
Own Kudos [?]: 1304 [1]
Given Kudos: 16
Send PM
Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership fi [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
It may be best to eliminate all the wrong options here before choosing the correct answer. Sometimes the language is written in a scrabbled way to, perhaps, "blank-face" a test-taker. Best to temporarily yellow flag it and look at the rest.

-contact: www.gmatknight.com | gmatclub dm

Originally posted by GmatKnightTutor on 08 Mar 2020, 08:18.
Last edited by GmatKnightTutor on 17 Aug 2023, 03:24, edited 1 time in total.
VP
VP
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1262
Own Kudos [?]: 201 [0]
Given Kudos: 332
Send PM
Re: Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership fi [#permalink]
Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership five years ago, is clear evidence that businesses will always fare better under private than under public ownership.

Julia: Wrong. A close look at the records shows that X has been profitable since the appointment of a first-class manager, which happened while X was still in the pubic sector.

Which of the following best describes the weak point in Ross’s claim on which Julia’s response focuses?


(A) The evidence Ross cites comes from only a single observed case, that of Company X.
This is true, but it’s not the weak point that Julia’s response focuses on, which is the temporal aspect of when the profitability emerged for company X.

(B) The profitability of Company X might be only temporary.
This addresses the temporal aspect I alluded to in A), but it’s not the right one. We need something that addresses the fact that the profitability came before the switch to private ownership (which is exactly what Julia is saying).

(C) Ross’s statement leaves open the possibility that the cause he cites came after the effect he attributes to it.
Correct.

(D) No mention is made of companies that are partly government owned and partly privately owned.
Not what Julia focused on.

(E) No exact figures are given for the current profits of Company
Again, true, but not what Julia focuses on.
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17220
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership fi [#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: Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership fi [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

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