It is currently 27 Jun 2017, 05:02

### 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
Manager
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 132
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2007, 12:52
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 corporation’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 corporation’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 division’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 corporation’s profits usually come from the pharmaceuticals.
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the pharmaceutical 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 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.

pls exp ur ans.thanx
Manager
Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 96

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2007, 13:39
Ok I first looked at this and could not delineate the difference in principal between C and D. Both, ostensibly, referenced the clear weakness in the argument which is a comparison of percentages from one year to the next does itself not quantify improvement because the rest of the corporation could have lagged considerably allowing for a greater percentage of profit to be attributable to the pharmaceutical division even if that division had the same or worse even fiscal performance from the year before.

That said, C and D both expose this weakness equally, but then I realized that the passage says "from 20 percent" not "up 20 percent" meaning D is actually not the same as what C is saying.

Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 376

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2007, 15:06
I concur
Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 635

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2009, 21:32
dr908 wrote:
Ok I first looked at this and could not delineate the difference in principal between C and D. Both, ostensibly, referenced the clear weakness in the argument which is a comparison of percentages from one year to the next does itself not quantify improvement because the rest of the corporation could have lagged considerably allowing for a greater percentage of profit to be attributable to the pharmaceutical division even if that division had the same or worse even fiscal performance from the year before.

That said, C and D both expose this weakness equally, but then I realized that the passage says "from 20 percent" not "up 20 percent" meaning D is actually not the same as what C is saying.

thanks for explanation.
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Director
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 545
Re: More of CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2009, 22:26
IMO C...does anybody know the OA for this?
Director
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 732
Re: More of CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2009, 13:53
IMO C.
Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 115
Location: NYC Baby!!!
Re: More of CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2009, 16:03
I pick C because they are only mentioning the portion that each department contributes to the total profits, and since the chemical dept brought in less this year, the pharm dept portion picked up the remaining percentage and it doesn't mean sales are up, just means they account for more of the profits this year.
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1408
Re: More of CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2009, 18:12
Typical percentage and total Q. C again
Re: More of CR   [#permalink] 19 Jan 2009, 18:12
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
Certain oil companies have been called poor corporate 0 14 Oct 2013, 16:45
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
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

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO 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®.