Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 19:04 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 19:04
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
655-705 Level|   Weaken|         
User avatar
sudhirmadaan
User avatar
Joined: 29 Nov 2011
Last visit: 22 Jul 2016
Posts: 74
Own Kudos:
84
Given Kudos: 366
Posts: 74
Kudos: 84
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 14 Sep 2015, 19:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
sudhirmadaan
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)
Dear sudhirmadaan,
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 :-)
Show more

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.
avatar
shivamchugh89
avatar
Joined: 10 Jul 2014
Last visit: 27 Oct 2016
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
2
Given Kudos: 10
Posts: 5
Kudos: 2
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 17 Sep 2015, 00:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
feruz77
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
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
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 :-)
Show more

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
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,531
 [1]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,531
 [1]
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 17 Sep 2015, 12:06
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
shivamchugh89
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
Show more
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 :-)
User avatar
chesstitans
User avatar
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Last visit: 20 Nov 2019
Posts: 987
Own Kudos:
1,923
Given Kudos: 2,562
Location: United States
Schools: Stanford '19 Carroll '19 LBS '19
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Schools: Stanford '19 Carroll '19 LBS '19
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
Posts: 987
Kudos: 1,923
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 02 Jul 2017, 11:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
Skywalker18
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Last visit: 15 Nov 2023
Posts: 2,039
Own Kudos:
9,960
 [2]
Given Kudos: 171
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 2,039
Kudos: 9,960
 [2]
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 04 Sep 2017, 04:25
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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

Answer C
User avatar
newyork2012
User avatar
Joined: 22 Sep 2014
Last visit: 23 Apr 2023
Posts: 122
Own Kudos:
51
Given Kudos: 51
Location: United States (CA)
Posts: 122
Kudos: 51
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 10 Sep 2018, 16:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(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
avatar
sargam0101
avatar
Joined: 09 Jun 2020
Last visit: 09 Sep 2020
Posts: 8
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 15
Posts: 8
Kudos: 4
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 07 Jul 2020, 21:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I did not understand the main argument of the question. Also , how to decide between C and D
User avatar
nepr9
User avatar
Kellogg School Moderator
Joined: 02 Feb 2015
Last visit: 14 Nov 2023
Posts: 11
Own Kudos:
10
Given Kudos: 219
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 11
Kudos: 10
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 06 Apr 2021, 02:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
How does option D not weaken the conclusion? The 20 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before ONLY if the profits increased or stayed constant. What if the profits decreased then the increase in percentage (from 20 to 45) will not be sufficient in and of itself since actual numerical profits from the chemical division could have fallen?
User avatar
Basshead
User avatar
Joined: 09 Jan 2020
Last visit: 07 Feb 2024
Posts: 925
Own Kudos:
301
Given Kudos: 432
Location: United States
Posts: 925
Kudos: 301
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 11 Sep 2021, 05:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nepr9
How does option D not weaken the conclusion? The 20 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before ONLY if the profits increased or stayed constant. What if the profits decreased then the increase in percentage (from 20 to 45) will not be sufficient in and of itself since actual numerical profits from the chemical division could have fallen?
Show more

D doesn't weaken the conclusion because it's irrelevant.

We're told the pharmaceutical division contributed 45% of the corporation's profits, up from 20% of the previous year.

So D is saying that it's not possible to determine whether that 20% was itself an improvement over the year before. So now we're talking about two years back.

We don't care about what happened two years ago.

It's interesting to note that the percentages have changed since the original question was posted (see mikemcgarry's response)
User avatar
KittyDoodles
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jan 2020
Last visit: 26 Mar 2025
Posts: 102
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 346
Schools: ISB '27 (A)
Schools: ISB '27 (A)
Posts: 102
Kudos: 6
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 24 Sep 2022, 22:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Experts,

Please can you advise what Option E means?

As per my understanding the option states that the passage hasn't provided us with enough information to compare the profits of both the divisions in terms of percentages. This is incorrect as we are given the percentage share of both the divisions in the total profits of the corporation and thus we are given enough information to compare them.

Thanks
Kitty
User avatar
minalgambhir
User avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2020
Last visit: 08 Jun 2024
Posts: 135
Own Kudos:
53
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 135
Kudos: 53
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 25 Sep 2022, 04:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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. - This is simply a reason why pharmaceutical division's contribution increased. Not a critique of the evidence

(B) In multidivisional corporations that have pharmaceutical divisions, over half of the corporation's profits usually come from the pharmaceuticals. - General statement, not a critique of the evidence

(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. - Non improvement over the year before doesn't critique the argument given

(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. - Information in the argument is comparing the performance
User avatar
chetan2u
User avatar
GMAT Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 11,238
Own Kudos:
43,696
Given Kudos: 335
Status:Math and DI Expert
Location: India
Concentration: Human Resources, General Management
GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V89 DI81
Products:
My Reviews
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V89 DI81
Posts: 11,238
Kudos: 43,696
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 25 Sep 2022, 06:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KittyDoodles
Hi Experts,

Please can you advise what Option E means?

As per my understanding the option states that the passage hasn't provided us with enough information to compare the profits of both the divisions in terms of percentages. This is incorrect as we are given the percentage share of both the divisions in the total profits of the corporation and thus we are given enough information to compare them.

Thanks
Kitty
Show more


Two points on E.

1) We are discussing on EVIDENCE, which just talks of Chemical division. Thus, comparison of chemical and pharmaceutical division does not help our analysis of evidence produced.
2) Are we given profits % to compare profits of these two divisions. The answer is NO, and so E is valid statement, although unrelated to our search for a correct answer.
Pharmaceutical: 60% is the traditional profit but last year was POOR one for pharmaceutical. So, we know traditional, but surely last year was poor and nothing about
this year
Chemical: Last year 20% and this year 45%. Nothing prior to last year.
So, no COMMON period to compare the %.
User avatar
IN2MBB2PE
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2020
Last visit: 17 Feb 2024
Posts: 130
Own Kudos:
35
Given Kudos: 82
Posts: 130
Kudos: 35
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 14 Feb 2023, 08:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Basshead
nepr9
How does option D not weaken the conclusion? The 20 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before ONLY if the profits increased or stayed constant. What if the profits decreased then the increase in percentage (from 20 to 45) will not be sufficient in and of itself since actual numerical profits from the chemical division could have fallen?

D doesn't weaken the conclusion because it's irrelevant.

We're told the pharmaceutical division contributed 45% of the corporation's profits, up from 20% of the previous year.

So D is saying that it's not possible to determine whether that 20% was itself an improvement over the year before. So now we're talking about two years back.

We don't care about what happened two years ago.

It's interesting to note that the percentages have changed since the original question was posted (see mikemcgarry's response)
Show more

C is logically wrong. It says - "The percentage of the corporation's profits attributable to the pharmaceutical division could have increased even if that division's performance had not improved".

This "could have increased" is not possible as the argument tells the Pharma this year contributed 45% of the corporation's profit. This means that 55% left for any other division to contribute at MAX.
The argument says that usually chemical division contributed 60% and the performance last year was unusually poor meaning it will likely be lower than 60%, at most it can be 55%, which still makes it impossible for C to hold.

I think the OA needs to be D. I Picked D thinking that the two years data was not sufficient to say it is growing stronger just based on a single year performance, what it the year is an outlier itself? Based on the one year data we cannot say a trend ..... can we?

GMATNinja AndrewN egmat please advise ... this question and picking answer choice b/w C and D driving me crazy ...

Also, how to identify "Out of Scope" or "Irrelevant" answer choices? Is there a process?

Thanks.


The OA has to be D.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,778
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,778
 [2]
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 18 Apr 2023, 13:59
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IN2MBB2PE
Basshead
nepr9
How does option D not weaken the conclusion? The 20 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before ONLY if the profits increased or stayed constant. What if the profits decreased then the increase in percentage (from 20 to 45) will not be sufficient in and of itself since actual numerical profits from the chemical division could have fallen?

D doesn't weaken the conclusion because it's irrelevant.

We're told the pharmaceutical division contributed 45% of the corporation's profits, up from 20% of the previous year.

So D is saying that it's not possible to determine whether that 20% was itself an improvement over the year before. So now we're talking about two years back.

We don't care about what happened two years ago.

It's interesting to note that the percentages have changed since the original question was posted (see mikemcgarry's response)

C is logically wrong. It says - "The percentage of the corporation's profits attributable to the pharmaceutical division could have increased even if that division's performance had not improved".

This "could have increased" is not possible as the argument tells the Pharma this year contributed 45% of the corporation's profit. This means that 55% left for any other division to contribute at MAX.

The argument says that usually chemical division contributed 60% and the performance last year was unusually poor meaning it will likely be lower than 60%, at most it can be 55%, which still makes it impossible for C to hold.

I think the OA needs to be D. I Picked D thinking that the two years data was not sufficient to say it is growing stronger just based on a single year performance, what it the year is an outlier itself? Based on the one year data we cannot say a trend ..... can we?

GMATNinja AndrewN egmat please advise ... this question and picking answer choice b/w C and D driving me crazy ...

Also, how to identify "Out of Scope" or "Irrelevant" answer choices? Is there a process?

Thanks.

The OA has to be D.
Show more
The problem is that we don't know anything about the company's other divisions or about the total profits year to year. If total profits dropped significantly, it's certainly possible that the percentage from the pharma division would go up even if profits from that division were unchanged.

Here, have an example.

Year 1 (total profit = $45 million):

  • pharmaceutical division: 20% ($9 million)
  • chemical division: 60% ($27 million)
  • other divisions: 20% ($9 million)

Year 2 (total profit = $20 million):

  • pharmaceutical division: 45% ($9 million - unchanged from last year)
  • chemical division: 20% ($4 million - an unusually poor year for that division)
  • other divisions: 35% ($7 million)

As for (D), remember that the chemical division traditionally contributes 60%. That means that, at most, the pharma division typically contributes 40%. In that case, 45% would still represent an increase.

Sure, the 20% could have been an outlier. But given that 45% is (1) a significant increase from last year and (2) higher than the traditional/typical percentage, how that 20% compares to the year before doesn't really affect the author's argument.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
Karan0912
User avatar
Joined: 01 Jul 2018
Last visit: 26 Jun 2024
Posts: 143
Own Kudos:
66
Given Kudos: 75
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V34
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V34
Posts: 143
Kudos: 66
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 18 Apr 2023, 21:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
C is the clear winner because drop in chemical division's profit could have naturally increased the share of profit of other divisions(in this case Pharmaceutical) even if there is no change in profits of pharma in $ terms. It is a clear case of % contribution doesnt mean improvement in profits.
User avatar
Raman109
User avatar
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 28 Jul 2025
Posts: 805
Own Kudos:
170
Given Kudos: 33
Posts: 805
Kudos: 170
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 23 Oct 2023, 11:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
First, a kind request if the moderator can correct option E - the "terms" is missing, and it causes some confusion in understanding the sentence. Thanks.
Understanding the argument -
It says that last year, the chemical division's (CD) performance was bad. Earlier, it used to contribute to 60% of the profits. (no further information on CD).
Then it says that the pharmaceutical division's (PD's) earlier contribution was 20%, and now it's 45%, so it is growing stronger.

The argument missed the possibility that the percentages could have changed because the overall pie has reduced. E.g.,
The previous year (before the LY), the profits were as follows: units
CD - 60 units
PD - 20 units
Other Divisions (OD) - 20 units
In overall 100, PD's contribution is 20%

LY
CD - 4 units
PD - 20 units
Other Divisions (OD) - 20 units
In overall 44, PD's contribution is 45%

Did the PD grow stronger? No. It performed the same. But just because the overall profit declined, the PD percentage looks better. And that's what option C highlights.

Option Elimination -

(A) The increase in the pharmaceutical division's contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of single, important new product. We aren't even going there yet. First, we ask the basic question, "Did the PD grow"? So, this option is out of scope.

(B) In multidivisional corporations that have pharmaceutical divisions, over half of the corporation's profits usually come from the pharmaceuticals. Doesn't matter what happens in other multinational corporations; it is out of scope.

(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. - Yes, that's what we highlighted.

(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. The improvement over the year before is out of scope.

(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 attributable to each. - The issue with this option is that while it tells the truth, it is still possible that the PD grew.

Let me share that with an example -

LY (Scenario 1) - PD doesn't grow
CD - 4 units - 4%
PD - 20 units - 45%
Other Divisions (OD) - 20 units
In overall 44, PD's contribution is 45

LY (Scenario 2) - PD grows
CD - 8 units - 4%
PD - 90 units - 45%
Other Divisions (OD) - 102 units
Overall, PD's contribution is 45

So, saying "does not make it possible" is something we can't say with 100% confidence. The data may or may not have helped. On the contrary, option C directly finds a flaw, citing Scenario 1.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,982
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,982
 [1]
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 23 Jun 2024, 22:30
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
karun_aggarwal
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.
Show more
­

Premises:

Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemical division, which has traditionally contributed about 60 percent of the corporation's profits.

Pharmaceutical division contributed 45 percent of the corporation's profits, up from 20 percent the previous year. 


Conclusion:

It is encouraging that the pharmaceutical division is growing stronger.

The officer shares that the chemical division fared badly last year, contributing less than usual to the profits but the pharmaceutical division contributed much more than it usually does. So, it is encouraging that the pharmaceutical division is growing stronger. We need to critique the evidence presented above. It is possible that the pie (overall profit figure) has reduced and that is why the share of the pharmaceutical division has increased even though the pharmaceutical division hasn’t really grown stronger. Since we know that chemical division, which normally provides about 60% of the profits performed poorly, it is quite likely that the overall profits have reduced. Hence even if the pharmaceutical division has performed the same as before, it could be responsible for a higher contribution to the profits. Let’s look at the options.

A. The increase in the pharmaceutical division's contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of single, important new product. 


It does mean that the pharmaceutical division has grown stronger - whether one product was responsible or many is irrelevant.



B. In multidivisional corporations that have pharmaceutical divisions, over half of the corporation's profits usually come from the pharmaceuticals. 



Irrelevant to our argument. How much the pharmaceutical divisions of other corporations contribute is irrelevant. We need to see whether our pharmaceutical division is improving compared with its performance in previous years. 



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. 



As we discussed above, if the overall profits reduced, the share of pharmaceutical division could have increased without an actual increase in its performance. Let’s take some numbers to understand how this is possible. For example, say last year total profits were $100 of which $20 came from pharmaceutical division (and $60 from chemical division). This year’s total profits are $45 (since chemical division performed poorly, it showed a profit of $5 only) out of which again $20 came from pharmaceutical division. The performance of the pharmaceutical division did not change but its percentage of the corporation's profits did increase from 20% to almost 45%. This is a critique of the evidence presented.


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. 



What happened last year compared with last to last year is irrelevant. 



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.

Irrelevant to our argument. We don’t need to compare the performance of the two divisions. We need to compare their performances with their own performances of last year.

Answer (C)

Discussion on Weaken Questions: https://youtu.be/EhZ8FKkfy0k
 
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,836
Own Kudos:
986
Posts: 18,836
Kudos: 986
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemica 08 Jul 2025, 05:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts