It is currently 18 Dec 2017, 10:53

# Final Week of R1 Decisions:

CHAT Rooms | MIT Sloan | McCombs

### 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

Intern
Joined: 28 Feb 2017
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

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

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2017, 00:30
I can't let go of D. It's beautifully stated the criticism in an analytical way. The percentage contribution might have increased due to the reduction in performance of Chemical division. So, 20% increase in value doesn't correspondingly represent the "growing stronger" - part of argument. When you allot values for percentages, you can easily see that. Hence, it is perfectly weakening it. Some help pls

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1853

Kudos [?]: 1076 [0], given: 90

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, 03:25
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

Kudos [?]: 1076 [0], given: 90

Director
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 710

Kudos [?]: 170 [0], given: 138

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

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2017, 07:00
karun_aggarwal wrote:
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.

@abhimanha please could you explain this one step by step?
Doesn't "critique" mean evaluation? Then why are we trying to weaken the question?

Regards
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

1. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation
2. LSAT RC compilation
3. Actual LSAT CR collection by Broal
4. QOTD RC (Carcass)
5. Challange OG RC

Kudos [?]: 170 [0], given: 138

Director
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 710

Kudos [?]: 170 [0], given: 138

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

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2017, 07:02
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.

abhimahna
Doesn't "critique" mean evaluation? Then why are we trying to weaken the question?

Regards
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

1. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation
2. LSAT RC compilation
3. Actual LSAT CR collection by Broal
4. QOTD RC (Carcass)
5. Challange OG RC

Kudos [?]: 170 [0], given: 138

Re: Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for   [#permalink] 04 Sep 2017, 07:02

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 44 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by