GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 18 Jun 2019, 18:09

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2011
Posts: 91
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2015, 19:14
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: 5
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2015, 00:23
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: 4488
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2015, 12:06
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

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1527
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jul 2017, 11:49
the question looks bazaar indeed, but it turns out that the right answer is all about that the argument fails to show the causal relation for the chemical division.
The pharmaceutical division is just unrelated fact.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2300
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2017, 04:25
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?

Boil it down - The pharmaceutical division is growing stronger since its % share of corporation's profits has increased from 20 to 45 %.
- It experienced ABSOLUTE growth ?
What if - the total profits of the entire corporation are down. The entire pie might be smaller and therefore the Pharma profits might stay the same and yet be a larger percentage of a smaller pie.

(A) The increase in the pharmaceutical division's contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of single, important new product. - Irrelevant - it does not dispute the claim that pharmaceutical division is growing stronger

(B) In multidivisional corporations that have pharmaceutical divisions, over half of the corporation's profits usually come from the pharmaceuticals. - Irrelevant - we are concerned about this company only.

(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. - Correct

(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. - Incorrect - we are only concerned in comparing the last 2 years

(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. - may be true, but its not the issue

_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful
Manager
Joined: 22 Sep 2014
Posts: 105
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2018, 16:47
(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.

pharmaceutical division could have done poorly also

previous year profit : chemical 60 million ,phar 20 million
this year : chemical 20 million ,phar 15 million

percentage is higher /// the actual number is lower
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for   [#permalink] 10 Sep 2018, 16:47

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 26 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by