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 https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 25 Feb 2017, 09:03

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

Manager
Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 213
Location: Uzbekistan
Schools: Johnson, Fuqua, Simon, Mendoza
WE 3: 10
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 686 [9] , given: 974

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

Show Tags

01 Nov 2010, 07:39
9
KUDOS
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

51% (02:33) correct 49% (01:43) wrong based on 620 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our pharmaceutical division, which has traditionally contributed about 70 percent of the corporation’s profits. It is therefore encouraging that there is the following evidence that the chemical division is growing stronger: it contributed 25 percent of the corporation’s profit up from 10 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 chemical division’s contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of a single, important new product.
(B) In multi-divisional corporations that have chemical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from chemicals
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical 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 25 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 terms of the percent of total profits attributed to each.

If it is a good question, I expect your KUDOS!!!
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
Posts: 120
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 256 [2] , given: 169

Re: pharmaceutical division versus chemical division [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Jan 2011, 04:19
2
KUDOS
What is the source of this question?

we need to see whether the amount of profit generated is greater then the last year's. Since there is a chance that increase to 25% of the overal profits is simply that the pharmacaeutical's division's profits went sharply down. in this case it may even be the case that chemicals profits are down as well, but no as much as pahrmaceutical
_________________

I will greatly appreciate your KUDOS my friends!

Manager
Joined: 08 Dec 2010
Posts: 214
WE 1: 4 yr IT
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 26

Re: pharmaceutical division versus chemical division [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Jan 2011, 06:10
C easily. A, D and E are irrelevant. between C and D , C is more direct.
_________________

this time, we play for keeps

Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 101
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 18

Re: pharmaceutical division versus chemical division [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Jan 2011, 07:57
I cannot see why C rather than D?
_________________

Hung M.Tran
Faculty of Banking and Finance,
National Economics University of Vietnam

Manager
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 92
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Re: pharmaceutical division versus chemical division [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Jan 2011, 11:11
his question is crazy.... i chose d but is its considered the cr in mathematical aspect, c sounds correct
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 171 [1] , given: 20

Re: pharmaceutical division versus chemical division [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Jan 2012, 23:49
1
KUDOS
andysimple wrote:
I cannot see why C rather than D?

The entire argument is about profits of this year and previous year and hence we need to take previous year's no.s as the base. There is no need to go beyond that. And hence, D is irrelevant for the discussion.

Coming to C:

Conclusion is the P division is doing great and we need to prove this wrong. As the no.s are undisputable facts, we need to find some other reason for the proof. In this context, C wins clearly.
_________________

-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti

Manager
Status: Bunuel's fan!
Joined: 08 Jul 2011
Posts: 242
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 55

Re: pharmaceutical division versus chemical division [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 May 2012, 05:14
q10nik wrote:
What is the source of this question?

I believe this is an Gmat prep question.
Intern
Status: Trying to crack GMAT
Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 39
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Technology
GMAT Date: 07-11-2012
GPA: 3.82
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 4

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

Show Tags

19 May 2012, 23:34
Well, I chose C, but I am kinda getting confused why people are saying D "could also" be correct. Doesn't the statement in D go against the facts..since the growth was from 10% to 25% ? So shouldn't we eliminate D outright?
_________________

“When I was young I observed that nine out of ten things I did were failures, so I did ten times more work.” ~ Bernard Shaw

Kudos me if I helped you in any way.

Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 201
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 53 [3] , given: 22

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

Show Tags

21 May 2012, 02:50
3
KUDOS
(A) The increase in the chemical division’s contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of a single, important new product. - Irrelevant information - Incorrect
(B) In multi-divisional corporations that have chemical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from chemicals - Irrelevant information - Incorrect
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved. - Just because the profit percentage has increased does not mean the performance of the division improved. Correct option
(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 25 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before. - It has been already referred in the passage which states that profit share has increased from 10 to 25% - Incorrect
(E) The information cited does not make it possible to compare the performance of the chemical and pharmaceutical divisions in terms of the percent of total profits attributed to each. - The passage does not compare both the divisions but states the change in share of profit attributed to each - Irrelevant and incorrect

Hope this helps.
Intern
Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 49
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 1

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

Show Tags

22 May 2012, 06:40
sidhu09 wrote:
(A) The increase in the chemical division’s contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of a single, important new product. - Irrelevant information - Incorrect
(B) In multi-divisional corporations that have chemical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from chemicals - Irrelevant information - Incorrect
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved. - Just because the profit percentage has increased does not mean the performance of the division improved. Correct option
(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 25 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before. - It has been already referred in the passage which states that profit share has increased from 10 to 25% - Incorrect
(E) The information cited does not make it possible to compare the performance of the chemical and pharmaceutical divisions in terms of the percent of total profits attributed to each. - The passage does not compare both the divisions but states the change in share of profit attributed to each - Irrelevant and incorrect

Hope this helps.

I agree with your reasoning. I have doubt for B. You say that it is irrelevant. Consider this: Normally the share of chemical divisions in the profits of the org. is more than half. Here, the share has reached only quarter stage. It tells that the chemical division is not performing well. A contender choice. How can it be irrelevant at all?
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3850
Followers: 1331

Kudos [?]: 6121 [4] , given: 71

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

Show Tags

09 May 2013, 09:09
4
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
feruz77 wrote:
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our pharmaceutical division, which has traditionally contributed about 70 percent of the corporation’s profits. It is therefore encouraging that there is the following evidence that the chemical division is growing stronger: it contributed 25 percent of the corporation’s profit up from 10 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 chemical division’s contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of a single, important new product.
(B) In multi-divisional corporations that have chemical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from chemicals
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical 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 25 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 terms of the percent of total profits attributed to each.

holidevil wrote:
I agree with your reasoning. I have doubt for B. You say that it is irrelevant. Consider this: Normally the share of chemical divisions in the profits of the org. is more than half. Here, the share has reached only quarter stage. It tells that the chemical division is not performing well. A contender choice. How can it be irrelevant at all?

Dear holidevil
Let's say (B) is true ---- does this mean that, in companies that have chemical divisions, the other divisions (such as pharmaceutical) are anemic? By contrast, the company in this question, in addition to having a chemical division as robust as any out there, also has other divisions that are even stronger, unlike the other chemical companies? In other words, this fact may imply that this company's chemical division is weak, or it may not. We simply don't have enough facts to decide. Remember, all we are comparing are percents. It's quite possible that 15% of one company is considerably more than 60% of another company. In CR terms, all this makes (B) irrelevant --- any fact which could be a strengthener or could be a weaker, pending more as yet unknown facts, is irrelevant. Does this make sense?
fameatop wrote:
Hi Mike,
I am not able to understand how come option C is correct & D is incorrect. Can you kindly throw some light on the same.
Regards, Fame

Dear Fame
This is a great CR question, and I think the real sticking point is between (C) & (D). It comes down to exact wording. Let's look at the exact wording.
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved.
(C) draws the crucial distinction between percentage of profits and actual performance, actual numerical profits. That's the ambiguity at stake in this question. Just because percent goes up does NOT mean that overall profits went up. In particular, if the pharmaceutical division, which previously constituted 70% of the profits, had a sour year, profits for the whole company would be down, and all the smaller divisions would occupy a much larger percentage of that much smaller pie. This goes to the core of the problem.
(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 25 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before.
This answer choice is about "percent share of the profits" --- this year was 25%, and was this an improvement over last year's percent share in the profits? Well, in fact, the prompt explicitly tells us --- the previous year's share of the profits for the chemical division was 10%, so in terms of percent share in the profits, the 25% is a clear improvement. This answer choice says zilch about the important distinction between percent of profits and actual numerical profits.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10636
Followers: 940

Kudos [?]: 207 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

09 Sep 2014, 09:33
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.
Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2011
Posts: 118
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 367

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

Show Tags

13 Sep 2015, 23:24
mikemcgarry wrote:
feruz77 wrote:
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our pharmaceutical division, which has traditionally contributed about 70 percent of the corporation’s profits. It is therefore encouraging that there is the following evidence that the chemical division is growing stronger: it contributed 25 percent of the corporation’s profit up from 10 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 chemical division’s contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of a single, important new product.
(B) In multi-divisional corporations that have chemical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from chemicals
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical 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 25 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 terms of the percent of total profits attributed to each.

holidevil wrote:
I agree with your reasoning. I have doubt for B. You say that it is irrelevant. Consider this: Normally the share of chemical divisions in the profits of the org. is more than half. Here, the share has reached only quarter stage. It tells that the chemical division is not performing well. A contender choice. How can it be irrelevant at all?

Dear holidevil
Let's say (B) is true ---- does this mean that, in companies that have chemical divisions, the other divisions (such as pharmaceutical) are anemic? By contrast, the company in this question, in addition to having a chemical division as robust as any out there, also has other divisions that are even stronger, unlike the other chemical companies? In other words, this fact may imply that this company's chemical division is weak, or it may not. We simply don't have enough facts to decide. Remember, all we are comparing are percents. It's quite possible that 15% of one company is considerably more than 60% of another company. In CR terms, all this makes (B) irrelevant --- any fact which could be a strengthener or could be a weaker, pending more as yet unknown facts, is irrelevant. Does this make sense?
fameatop wrote:
Hi Mike,
I am not able to understand how come option C is correct & D is incorrect. Can you kindly throw some light on the same.
Regards, Fame

Dear Fame
This is a great CR question, and I think the real sticking point is between (C) & (D). It comes down to exact wording. Let's look at the exact wording.
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved.
(C) draws the crucial distinction between percentage of profits and actual performance, actual numerical profits. That's the ambiguity at stake in this question. Just because percent goes up does NOT mean that overall profits went up. In particular, if the pharmaceutical division, which previously constituted 70% of the profits, had a sour year, profits for the whole company would be down, and all the smaller divisions would occupy a much larger percentage of that much smaller pie. This goes to the core of the problem.
(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 25 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before.
This answer choice is about "percent share of the profits" --- this year was 25%, and was this an improvement over last year's percent share in the profits? Well, in fact, the prompt explicitly tells us --- the previous year's share of the profits for the chemical division was 10%, so in terms of percent share in the profits, the 25% is a clear improvement. This answer choice says zilch about the important distinction between percent of profits and actual numerical profits.
Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi Mike,
conclusion says pharma going stronger does that really mean performance of the pharma division is good or we are assuming nothing other than performance be stronger.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3850
Followers: 1331

Kudos [?]: 6121 [0], given: 71

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

Show Tags

14 Sep 2015, 10:22
Hi Mike,
conclusion says pharma going stronger does that really mean performance of the pharma division is good or we are assuming nothing other than performance be stronger.

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, I was not able to understand exactly what you were asking. I am going to challenge you to re-ask your question, but write an excellent question. Don't use abbreviations. Use proper capitalization and punctuation. Don't be casual in asking your question. Don't be casual in any aspect of your GMAT preparation. The only way to achieve excellence is to make it a habit, and you have to reach for excellence in everything---every practice problem you do, every lesson you watch, every question you ask. You have to be assiduous about bring the very best of yourself to every task, so that you are ready to rise to the occasion of the GMAT. See this blog about asking excellent questions:

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2011
Posts: 118
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 367

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

Show Tags

14 Sep 2015, 10:39
mikemcgarry wrote:
Hi Mike,
conclusion says pharma going stronger does that really mean performance of the pharma division is good or we are assuming nothing other than performance be stronger.

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, I was not able to understand exactly what you were asking. I am going to challenge you to re-ask your question, but write an excellent question. Don't use abbreviations. Use proper capitalization and punctuation. Don't be casual in asking your question. Don't be casual in any aspect of your GMAT preparation. The only way to achieve excellence is to make it a habit, and you have to reach for excellence in everything---every practice problem you do, every lesson you watch, every question you ask. You have to be assiduous about bring the very best of yourself to every task, so that you are ready to rise to the occasion of the GMAT. See this blog about asking excellent questions:

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi Mike , thanks for responding back. Actually my concern was with C and E, but reading again and again your explanation above made things clearer. E is actually out of scope, because we need to provide critic to evidence and evidence is about chemical only. But i did not understand your point in
if the pharmaceutical division, which previously constituted 70% of the profits, had a sour year, profits for the whole company would be down,(understood) and all the smaller divisions would occupy a much larger percentage of that much smaller pie. This goes to the core of the problem(not clear how does this relate to main point of the passage)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3850
Followers: 1331

Kudos [?]: 6121 [1] , given: 71

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

Show Tags

14 Sep 2015, 12:46
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
Hi Mike , thanks for responding back. Actually my concern was with C and E, but reading again and again your explanation above made things clearer. E is actually out of scope, because we need to provide critic to evidence and evidence is about chemical only. But i did not understand your point in
if the pharmaceutical division, which previously constituted 70% of the profits, had a sour year, profits for the whole company would be down,(understood) and all the smaller divisions would occupy a much larger percentage of that much smaller pie. This goes to the core of the problem(not clear how does this relate to main point of the passage)

Excellent question, my friend. I will try to explain.

Let's think about real numbers. Suppose, in previous years, the profits were $10 million. The pharmaceutical division produced 70% of those, or$7 million dollars. Let's assume that was true last year. Last year, the chemical division contributed 10%, or $1 million in profits. Let's say a third fictional Division X accounted for the other$2 million in profits, or 20%.

Now, this year, the pharmaceutical division had an off year. Let's make this extreme, with $7 million going down to$1 million. Assume that the other two divisions remained unchanged: the chemical division still contributed $1 million, and Division X producing$2 million. Now, the total profits is only $4 million. The chemical division accounts for 25% of this, and Division X accounts for 50%. OK, with all this in mind, what I was saying was that when the pharmaceutical division decreases, it decreases the size of the whole pie, because it was a very big piece of that pie. This means that the same cash value contribution from the smaller divisions (e.g. chemical and Division X) will account for higher percentages because the total has gotten smaller. In the scenario I proposed, chemical went from 10% to 25%, and Division X went from 20% to 50%, even though they contributed the exact same dollar amount in both years. Those same dollar amounts represent higher percentages, only because the total has gone down. This is the core of the fallacy of the argument. The Corporate Officer suggest that the company is in good shape, because the chemical division went from 10% to 25%, as if that represents growth, but as my numerical scenario demonstrates, that percentage increase might represent not a single dime of increase in profits, but just the fact that the total profits decreased. In this numerical scenario, the total profits went from$10M to $4M. There's absolutely nothing positive about that. The fact that the$1M from the chemical division used to be only 10% of $10M and now is 25% of$4M is irrelevant: it does not mean that any more profits are arising, or any other increase will offset the losses in the pharmaceutical division. It's a completely fallacious suggestion, and choice (C) goes to the core of this fallacy.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2011
Posts: 118
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 367

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

Show Tags

14 Sep 2015, 18:14
mikemcgarry wrote:
Hi Mike , thanks for responding back. Actually my concern was with C and E, but reading again and again your explanation above made things clearer. E is actually out of scope, because we need to provide critic to evidence and evidence is about chemical only. But i did not understand your point in
if the pharmaceutical division, which previously constituted 70% of the profits, had a sour year, profits for the whole company would be down,(understood) and all the smaller divisions would occupy a much larger percentage of that much smaller pie. This goes to the core of the problem(not clear how does this relate to main point of the passage)

Excellent question, my friend. I will try to explain.

Let's think about real numbers. Suppose, in previous years, the profits were $10 million. The pharmaceutical division produced 70% of those, or$7 million dollars. Let's assume that was true last year. Last year, the chemical division contributed 10%, or $1 million in profits. Let's say a third fictional Division X accounted for the other$2 million in profits, or 20%.

Now, this year, the pharmaceutical division had an off year. Let's make this extreme, with $7 million going down to$1 million. Assume that the other two divisions remained unchanged: the chemical division still contributed $1 million, and Division X producing$2 million. Now, the total profits is only $4 million. The chemical division accounts for 25% of this, and Division X accounts for 50%. OK, with all this in mind, what I was saying was that when the pharmaceutical division decreases, it decreases the size of the whole pie, because it was a very big piece of that pie. This means that the same cash value contribution from the smaller divisions (e.g. chemical and Division X) will account for higher percentages because the total has gotten smaller. In the scenario I proposed, chemical went from 10% to 25%, and Division X went from 20% to 50%, even though they contributed the exact same dollar amount in both years. Those same dollar amounts represent higher percentages, only because the total has gone down. This is the core of the fallacy of the argument. The Corporate Officer suggest that the company is in good shape, because the chemical division went from 10% to 25%, as if that represents growth, but as my numerical scenario demonstrates, that percentage increase might represent not a single dime of increase in profits, but just the fact that the total profits decreased. In this numerical scenario, the total profits went from$10M to $4M. There's absolutely nothing positive about that. The fact that the$1M from the chemical division used to be only 10% of $10M and now is 25% of$4M is irrelevant: it does not mean that any more profits are arising, or any other increase will offset the losses in the pharmaceutical division. It's a completely fallacious suggestion, and choice (C) goes to the core of this fallacy.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thanks a tonn. Moment i read this question, overall profits are down is popping in my mind m but did not relate that, but your explanation did . thanks a lot.
Intern
Joined: 10 Jul 2014
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 10

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

Show Tags

16 Sep 2015, 23:23
mikemcgarry wrote:
feruz77 wrote:
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our pharmaceutical division, which has traditionally contributed about 70 percent of the corporation’s profits. It is therefore encouraging that there is the following evidence that the chemical division is growing stronger: it contributed 25 percent of the corporation’s profit up from 10 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 chemical division’s contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of a single, important new product.
(B) In multi-divisional corporations that have chemical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from chemicals
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical 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 25 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 terms of the percent of total profits attributed to each.

holidevil wrote:
I agree with your reasoning. I have doubt for B. You say that it is irrelevant. Consider this: Normally the share of chemical divisions in the profits of the org. is more than half. Here, the share has reached only quarter stage. It tells that the chemical division is not performing well. A contender choice. How can it be irrelevant at all?

Dear holidevil
Let's say (B) is true ---- does this mean that, in companies that have chemical divisions, the other divisions (such as pharmaceutical) are anemic? By contrast, the company in this question, in addition to having a chemical division as robust as any out there, also has other divisions that are even stronger, unlike the other chemical companies? In other words, this fact may imply that this company's chemical division is weak, or it may not. We simply don't have enough facts to decide. Remember, all we are comparing are percents. It's quite possible that 15% of one company is considerably more than 60% of another company. In CR terms, all this makes (B) irrelevant --- any fact which could be a strengthener or could be a weaker, pending more as yet unknown facts, is irrelevant. Does this make sense?
fameatop wrote:
Hi Mike,
I am not able to understand how come option C is correct & D is incorrect. Can you kindly throw some light on the same.
Regards, Fame

Dear Fame
This is a great CR question, and I think the real sticking point is between (C) & (D). It comes down to exact wording. Let's look at the exact wording.
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved.
(C) draws the crucial distinction between percentage of profits and actual performance, actual numerical profits. That's the ambiguity at stake in this question. Just because percent goes up does NOT mean that overall profits went up. In particular, if the pharmaceutical division, which previously constituted 70% of the profits, had a sour year, profits for the whole company would be down, and all the smaller divisions would occupy a much larger percentage of that much smaller pie. This goes to the core of the problem.
(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 25 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before.
This answer choice is about "percent share of the profits" --- this year was 25%, and was this an improvement over last year's percent share in the profits? Well, in fact, the prompt explicitly tells us --- the previous year's share of the profits for the chemical division was 10%, so in terms of percent share in the profits, the 25% is a clear improvement. This answer choice says zilch about the important distinction between percent of profits and actual numerical profits.
Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi Mike

I still doubt the explanation and the OA given here. In your explanation of C you have mentioned that "Just because percent goes up does NOT mean that overall profits went up". Does this not totally fit into option D as well. According to you for D previous share was 10% and this years share is 25% which is an improvement. Here also just because %age went up does not mean that profits also went up. Last year the profit could be 1000 Dollars and chem div share could be 100 dollars, whereas if this year it is 100 dollars,even with 25% the profits could still be lower. IMO C does not still really fit into the solution.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3850
Followers: 1331

Kudos [?]: 6121 [0], given: 71

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

Show Tags

17 Sep 2015, 11:06
shivamchugh89 wrote:
Hi Mike

I still doubt the explanation and the OA given here. In your explanation of C you have mentioned that "Just because percent goes up does NOT mean that overall profits went up". Does this not totally fit into option D as well. According to you for D previous share was 10% and this years share is 25% which is an improvement. Here also just because %age went up does not mean that profits also went up. Last year the profit could be 1000 Dollars and chem div share could be 100 dollars, whereas if this year it is 100 dollars,even with 25% the profits could still be lower. IMO C does not still really fit into the solution.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks

Dear shivamchugh89,
I'm happy to respond.

Remember that this is an official question, from GMAT Prep. It's the nature of official GMAT CR questions that, while only one answer choice is definitively correct, the other four are tempting and, from a certain perspective, might seem correct. Our job on the GMAT CR is NOT to try to find the special perspective that will make a tempting wrong answer appear correct. Our job is to discern which is the best answer. This can be very tricky.

Here's the prompt again.
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our pharmaceutical division, which has traditionally contributed about 70 percent of the corporation’s profits. It is therefore encouraging that there is the following evidence that the chemical division is growing stronger: it contributed 25 percent of the corporation’s profit up from 10 percent the previous year.
As well have discussed on this thread, and as you seem to understand, the screaming fallacy in what the Corporate Officer says is the conflation of percentage increase with dollar amount increase. He equates those two, and they may not be equivalent. As I demonstrated with the numerical examples above, percents of certain departments could go up, even if dollar amount went down.

Now, the specific question:
On the basis of the facts stated which of the following is the best critique of the evidence presented above?
Some of the incorrect answers might be indirect critiques, or might be ambiguous. The best will be the answer that zeros in on the screaming fallacy in the prompt.

I'll just analyze the two choices you cited:
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved.
AHA! The difference of a percent increase vs. a dollar increase! This answer says: a percent increase may not equal a dollar increase, and that is precisely the oversight of the Corporate Officer. This answer choice makes a direct bull's eye hit on the major fallacy of the prompt.

(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 25 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before.
What does the author mean by "improvement"? Does he mean a percentage increase or a dollar increase? If the person saying this is of the same mindset as the Corporate Officer, then they both will agree that 25% is an improvement over 10%. If the person saying this has the same understanding as the speaker of (C), then this would be an equivalent objection. The trouble is: there's ambiguity. It could be another valid devastating objection, as (C) is, but it depends on the reading we give to the word "improvement" --- we don't know how the speaker intended that word. This choice leaves us with questions.

A maybe, possible objection is not as good as a solid, unambiguous objection. That's why (C) is a better answer than (D), and the best answer overall.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Intern
Joined: 10 Jul 2014
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 10

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

Show Tags

17 Sep 2015, 11:41
mikemcgarry wrote:
shivamchugh89 wrote:
Hi Mike

I still doubt the explanation and the OA given here. In your explanation of C you have mentioned that "Just because percent goes up does NOT mean that overall profits went up". Does this not totally fit into option D as well. According to you for D previous share was 10% and this years share is 25% which is an improvement. Here also just because %age went up does not mean that profits also went up. Last year the profit could be 1000 Dollars and chem div share could be 100 dollars, whereas if this year it is 100 dollars,even with 25% the profits could still be lower. IMO C does not still really fit into the solution.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks

Dear shivamchugh89,
I'm happy to respond.

Remember that this is an official question, from GMAT Prep. It's the nature of official GMAT CR questions that, while only one answer choice is definitively correct, the other four are tempting and, from a certain perspective, might seem correct. Our job on the GMAT CR is NOT to try to find the special perspective that will make a tempting wrong answer appear correct. Our job is to discern which is the best answer. This can be very tricky.

Here's the prompt again.
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our pharmaceutical division, which has traditionally contributed about 70 percent of the corporation’s profits. It is therefore encouraging that there is the following evidence that the chemical division is growing stronger: it contributed 25 percent of the corporation’s profit up from 10 percent the previous year.
As well have discussed on this thread, and as you seem to understand, the screaming fallacy in what the Corporate Officer says is the conflation of percentage increase with dollar amount increase. He equates those two, and they may not be equivalent. As I demonstrated with the numerical examples above, percents of certain departments could go up, even if dollar amount went down.

Now, the specific question:
On the basis of the facts stated which of the following is the best critique of the evidence presented above?
Some of the incorrect answers might be indirect critiques, or might be ambiguous. The best will be the answer that zeros in on the screaming fallacy in the prompt.

I'll just analyze the two choices you cited:
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the chemical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved.
AHA! The difference of a percent increase vs. a dollar increase! This answer says: a percent increase may not equal a dollar increase, and that is precisely the oversight of the Corporate Officer. This answer choice makes a direct bull's eye hit on the major fallacy of the prompt.

(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 25 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before.
What does the author mean by "improvement"? Does he mean a percentage increase or a dollar increase? If the person saying this is of the same mindset as the Corporate Officer, then they both will agree that 25% is an improvement over 10%. If the person saying this has the same understanding as the speaker of (C), then this would be an equivalent objection. The trouble is: there's ambiguity. It could be another valid devastating objection, as (C) is, but it depends on the reading we give to the word "improvement" --- we don't know how the speaker intended that word. This choice leaves us with questions.

A maybe, possible objection is not as good as a solid, unambiguous objection. That's why (C) is a better answer than (D), and the best answer overall.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hey Mike
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I think I understand now where the difference between the two options lies. Option D seems a little ambiguous if we focus on the word improvement. And as you pointed out, a totally unambiguous option is obviously the best choice. Thanks again. Cheers
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for   [#permalink] 17 Sep 2015, 11:41
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Due to budget constraints for the upcoming year, the corporate office 4 22 Nov 2015, 10:09
21 Over the last ten years, the Office of the Provost has 13 27 Mar 2012, 08:40
22 Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for 31 23 Aug 2009, 10:13
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