It is currently 23 Nov 2017, 10:04

### 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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1699

Kudos [?]: 481 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2005, 14:17
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 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 corporationâ€™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 corporationâ€™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 divisionâ€™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 corporationâ€™s profits usually come from the pharmaceuticals.
(C) The percentage of the corporationâ€™s profits attributable to the pharmaceutical division could have increased even if that divisionâ€™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.
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 481 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 198

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

Location: New York
Re: CR # pharmaceutical division [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2005, 14:36
C.

The percentage of profits from the pharmaceutical division could have risen as a result of a decline in the overall profits from both divisions.

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

Director
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 984

Kudos [?]: 221 [0], given: 0

Location: South Korea
Re: CR # pharmaceutical division [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2005, 16:58
celiaXDN wrote:
C.

The percentage of profits from the pharmaceutical division could have risen as a result of a decline in the overall profits from both divisions.

I agree with celiaXDN, but the same reasoning leads me to choose (D).

If what celiaXDN explained is true, then it's not an improvement, not to mention of "become stronger".
_________________

Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn !

Kudos [?]: 221 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 231

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2005, 01:38
go C go...

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1699

Kudos [?]: 481 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2005, 14:55
OA is C indeed.....
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 481 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2005, 18:47
If the share of chemical department has decreased then the share of the pharma department may have increased in the total pie even when there was no improvement in pharma division.

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 498

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

### Show Tags

29 Oct 2005, 05:09
C is the answer.

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 498

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

### Show Tags

29 Oct 2005, 05:09
C is the answer.

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

29 Oct 2005, 05:09
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.