It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 07:35

### 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
Manager
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 117

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

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

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2006, 03:55
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.

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

Director
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 659

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Location: London

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2006, 03:59
I am going with C.
Maybe the pharma division didnt do any better. But the poor performance of the chemical division raised the performance percentage of the pharma division.

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 224

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

Location: Milwaukee,WI

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2006, 06:56
C for me too . since chemical division's profit went down so as a result the profit percentage of pharma went up ( where in reality the overall profile of pharma division might have been the same ) the percentage increase/decrease is always relative not absolute .

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 325

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

Location: London

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2006, 09:37
Agree with C.

remgeo wrote:
I am going with C.
Maybe the pharma division didnt do any better. But the poor performance of the chemical division raised the performance percentage of the pharma division.

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

Intern
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 9

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

Location: Zurich

### Show Tags

15 Apr 2006, 14:26
Yes, C

SunShine wrote:
Agree with C.

remgeo wrote:
I am going with C.
Maybe the pharma division didnt do any better. But the poor performance of the chemical division raised the performance percentage of the pharma division.

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

15 Apr 2006, 14:26
Display posts from previous: Sort by