It is currently 22 Nov 2017, 22:43

### 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
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2009
Posts: 112

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 3

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

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2009, 15:45

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 3

Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 227

Kudos [?]: 301 [3], given: 25

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

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2009, 01:12
3
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.INCORRECT. Even if it is from one product, there is reason to applaud the growth
(B) In multidivisional corporations that have pharmaceutical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from the pharmaceuticals.INCORRECT. Does not make sense
(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. This clearly shows that the reason for the increase in profits is not improvement. Therefore no reason to applaud the pharma division
(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 20 percent share of profits cited itself an improvement over the year before.INCORRECT. 20% is an improvement whichever way you look at it
(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.INCORRECT. Misleading. We are not comparing the two, we are only trying to see whether there is reason to believe that the pharma division has improved or not

Hope this helps

Kudos [?]: 301 [3], given: 25

Intern
Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Posts: 45

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2009, 18:11
imo C

conclusion: It is therefore encouraging that there is the following evidence that the pharmaceutical division is growing stronger (not stronger than chemical devison) i belive in this case it would b E

but judging by the previuse year figure , it just growing stronger...

to come to conclusion officer just comparies figures ... not divisions with each other

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Status: Now or never
Joined: 07 Aug 2010
Posts: 343

Kudos [?]: 298 [0], given: 27

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GPA: 3.5
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2011, 11:07
I think C only makes sense
_________________

Please press KUDOS if you like my post

Kudos [?]: 298 [0], given: 27

Manager
Status: Time to apply!
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 197

Kudos [?]: 148 [0], given: 166

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 660 Q50 V29
GMAT 3: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Nov 2011, 20:29
+1 C
_________________

Didn't give up !!! Still Trying!!

Kudos [?]: 148 [0], given: 166

BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 888

Kudos [?]: 735 [0], given: 44

Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2011, 02:28
I will go with C
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Kudos [?]: 735 [0], given: 44

Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 169

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 6

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2011, 12:22
C

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 6

Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2011
Posts: 177

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 6

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

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2012, 22:41
I find C & E equally good....

C states pharma doesn't need to perform good to get given result.

E states we don't know company has only these 2 divisions.......

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 6

Intern
Joined: 24 May 2012
Posts: 13

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 4

Location: India
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Sep 2012, 02:06
I can understand why C is correct. But what's wrong with D?
Say the profit last year was 100\$, then 20\$ was the profit from pharma
Say the profit this year is 10\$, then 45% is only 4.5\$.
So with this data we cannot conclude that pharma section is growing. So what D states is right, isn't it?

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 4

Current Student
Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 75

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 200

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

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2013, 08:24
I think the correct answer is C. As the Chemical Division performed badly, it is possible that total profit (from all departments) decreased or remained same during the previous year. But the share of profit from Pharmaceutical Division increased (from 20% to 45%), we are not sure whether the absolute dollar amount increased.

It is possible that the Pharmaceutical Division performed at the same level (or maybe worse) compared to last year but still contribute 45% towards total profit because the Chemical Division did far worse and the total profit figure decreased (thus increasing Pharmaceutical's share).

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 200

Current Student
Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 75

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 200

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

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2013, 08:26
In case of choice E, I think it is refutable as we can compare the relative contribution of two divisions for the previous year (60% or more for Chemical, 20% for Pharma) as well as this year (less than or equal to 55% for Chemical, and 45% for Pharma).

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 200

MBA Section Director
Status: Back to work...
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Posts: 4782

Kudos [?]: 3798 [0], given: 2448

Location: India
City: Pune
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.4
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2013, 09:35
I think It should be C.

Conclusion :- Pharmaceutical division becoming stronger
Evidence :- it's share in total profit has increased from 20% to 45%. Pay close attention here. Increase in share doesn't necessarily mean increase in profit. so this can form the best basis to criticize the evidence.

A) Wrong. We are just concerned about whether there is substantial profit increase in pharmaceutical division. doesn't matter whether it comes from a single product or two.

B) Wrong. irrelevant.

C) Contender. This choice states that without any efforts this divisions share could have increased. Then it can be inferred that other divisions have shown poor performance (Probably the chemical division most) so the share of pharmaceutical division in total profit has increased with making any increase in its profit and without getting stronger.

D) Wrong. Again we are only concerned about increase in current year profit and not that of last year.

E) Wrong. This choice can be shell game answer. This could have contender had it provide the reasons why the information is insufficient to compare the performance of both the divisions.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 3798 [0], given: 2448

MBA Section Director
Status: Back to work...
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Posts: 4782

Kudos [?]: 3798 [1], given: 2448

Location: India
City: Pune
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.4
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2013, 09:37
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
I think It should be C.

Conclusion :- Pharmaceutical division becoming stronger
Evidence :- it's share in total profit has increased from 20% to 45%. Pay close attention here. Increase in share doesn't necessarily mean increase in profit. so this can form the best basis to criticize the evidence.

A) Wrong. We are just concerned about whether there is substantial profit increase in pharmaceutical division. doesn't matter whether it comes from a single product or two.

B) Wrong. irrelevant.

C) Contender. This choice states that without any efforts this divisions share could have increased. Then it can be inferred that other divisions have shown poor performance (Probably the chemical division most) so the share of pharmaceutical division in total profit has increased with making any increase in its profit and without getting stronger.

D) Wrong. Again we are only concerned about increase in current year profit and not that of last year.

E) Wrong. This choice can be shell game answer. This could have contender had it provide the reasons why the information is insufficient to compare the performance of both the divisions.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 3798 [1], given: 2448

Intern
Joined: 31 Mar 2014
Posts: 20

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 1

Concentration: Operations, General Management
Schools: IIMA (PGPX)
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2014, 09:35
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

Quite simple question based on %.

Conclusion: pharmaceutical division is growing stronger
Premise : Its percentage share/share in profits is growing.

Key: In averages ,percentages, proportions simply remember percent %= (target group)/ (totalgroup) .
Pre assumption : Total group is shrinking , then percent can increase easily even when target group remains constant.

The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the pharmaceutical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 1

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2015, 02:42
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2015, 02:00
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 21 May 2015
Posts: 13

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Location: United States
WE: Brand Management (Consumer Products)
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2015, 03:42
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.

I chose C because : " the pharmaceutical division is growing stronger " The percentage share of PD do not increase but the but the total profit decreased. So that leads to the increase in the PD share of profits.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 20 May 2015
Posts: 8

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 22

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

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2016, 02:13
It should be C.
The % profits of both the divisions can be compared. From 20% to 45% for pharma division, whereas 60% to <=55% for chemical division.

Conclusion: 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.

(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.

C clearly weakens by saying that profits could have increased even if performance had not improved. Negating this hurts the conclusion.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 22

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2016, 14:37
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 157

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 340

Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Organizational Behavior
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2017, 00:11
Hello,
I understand why is C correct. But can anyone let me know where does D flaw ? D questions the absolute value of profits of previous and this year. Doesn't this unknown value weakens the conclusion?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
_________________

------------------------------
"Trust the timing of your life"
Hit Kudus if this has helped you get closer to your goal, and also to assist others save time. Tq

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 340

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for   [#permalink] 08 Jun 2017, 00:11

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 44 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by