Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 22 May 2017, 23:32

### 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
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 365
Schools: Kellogg School of Management
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 3

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

### Show Tags

25 Apr 2006, 19:39
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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.
Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 135
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

25 Apr 2006, 19:47
It's C.
VP
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1122
Location: India
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

25 Apr 2006, 19:53
Indeed it should be C.

The share of the pharma department may have increased in the total pie even when there was no improvement in pharma division b'coz the share of chemical department has decreased.
SVP
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 1885
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 321 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Apr 2006, 20:13
prude_sb wrote:
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?

(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.

IMO, this CR asks about the assumption which weakens the conclusion, and the type of this assumption question is cause-and-effect.

To find the correct answer choice, it's best to ask whether there're alternative causes. Here, the increase in contribution of pharmaceutical division to the company's profit may not be due to the improvement in performance but due to the decreased contribution level of chemical division ( that's why this CR mentions about "chemical division" )

C provides us an open to alternative causes.

Go for C.
Director
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 659
Location: London
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2006, 01:52
C it is.. has been discussed before.
26 Apr 2006, 01:52
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Certain oil companies have been called poor corporate 14 03 Oct 2010, 16:43
Certain oil companies have been called poor corporate 8 02 Jul 2010, 18:27
Corporate officers and directors commonly buy and sell, for 7 01 Jan 2008, 01:59
Certain oil companies have been called poor corporate 12 01 Oct 2007, 19:55
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for 7 19 Jan 2009, 18:12
Display posts from previous: Sort by