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

 It is currently 22 Apr 2019, 17:14

### 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

# CR question confusion

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 21 Sep 2014
Posts: 16
Location: Ukraine
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V38
GPA: 3.57

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2017, 02:05
1
2
Most CEO’s have either sales or marketing experience prior to becoming the CEO. Data shows that, over the past decade, 30% of CEO’s who have prior sales experience have successfully transformed the strategy of a company and taken a company into a completely new direction whereas only 20% of CEO’s with prior Marketing experience have done the same. Therefore, it can be argued that CEO’s with prior sales experience are more successful in transforming the strategy of company than those with Marketing experience.

In evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

A. Whether there have been more CEO’s with sales experience than marketing experience in the past decade.

B. What skills does a prior Sales experience impart to a CEO that a marketing job does not.

C. Whether a greater percentage of CEO’s with Sales experience were required to transform the strategy of a company than the percentage of marketing CEO’s.

D. Whether the shareholder returns provided by the CEO’s with Sales experience were greater than those provided by CEO’s with marketing experience.

E. Whether CEO’s with Sales experience cost the organization more than CEO’s with marketing experience.

Could you provide your understanding of this question?
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4485

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2017, 13:27
1
olnata wrote:
Most CEO’s have either sales or marketing experience prior to becoming the CEO. Data shows that, over the past decade, 30% of CEO’s who have prior sales experience have successfully transformed the strategy of a company and taken a company into a completely new direction whereas only 20% of CEO’s with prior Marketing experience have done the same. Therefore, it can be argued that CEO’s with prior sales experience are more successful in transforming the strategy of company than those with Marketing experience.

In evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

A. Whether there have been more CEO’s with sales experience than marketing experience in the past decade.

B. What skills does a prior Sales experience impart to a CEO that a marketing job does not.

C. Whether a greater percentage of CEO’s with Sales experience were required to transform the strategy of a company than the percentage of marketing CEO’s.

D. Whether the shareholder returns provided by the CEO’s with Sales experience were greater than those provided by CEO’s with marketing experience.

E. Whether CEO’s with Sales experience cost the organization more than CEO’s with marketing experience.

Could you provide your understanding of this question?

Dear olnata,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, I don't have the highest opinion of this question. First of all, there's a suspect grammatical construction in the prompt:
Data shows that, over the past decade, 30% of CEO’s who have prior sales experience have successfully transformed the strategy of a company and taken a company into a completely new direction whereas only 20% of CEO’s with prior Marketing experience have done the same.
This should be
. . . whereas only 20% of CEO’s with prior Marketing experience have done so.
Substandard grammar is not exactly an endorsement for the question.

Similarly, in (C), there is something suspect and sloppy about calling one group "marketing CEOs," rather than "CEOs with marketing experience."

I think (C) is a reasonably good answer to the question. I think (B) is a little too good to be a wrong answer, and I think (A) & (D) & (E) are just out-in-left-field wrong, easy for most students to eliminate. The author of the question has utterly failed to write GMAT-like distractors.

Overall, this is not the highest quality question. As with many poor quality GMAT verbal practice questions, this replicates the general format of the question nad has an appropriate topic, and unlike many, it even has a solid OA, but the four incorrect answers are by far the weakest part of the question.

I would give this question a grade of a D.

Here's a much high quality CR practice question:

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)
Intern
Joined: 21 Sep 2014
Posts: 16
Location: Ukraine
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V38
GPA: 3.57

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2017, 02:23
mikemcgarry wrote:
olnata wrote:
Most CEO’s have either sales or marketing experience prior to becoming the CEO. Data shows that, over the past decade, 30% of CEO’s who have prior sales experience have successfully transformed the strategy of a company and taken a company into a completely new direction whereas only 20% of CEO’s with prior Marketing experience have done the same. Therefore, it can be argued that CEO’s with prior sales experience are more successful in transforming the strategy of company than those with Marketing experience.

In evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

A. Whether there have been more CEO’s with sales experience than marketing experience in the past decade.

B. What skills does a prior Sales experience impart to a CEO that a marketing job does not.

C. Whether a greater percentage of CEO’s with Sales experience were required to transform the strategy of a company than the percentage of marketing CEO’s.

D. Whether the shareholder returns provided by the CEO’s with Sales experience were greater than those provided by CEO’s with marketing experience.

E. Whether CEO’s with Sales experience cost the organization more than CEO’s with marketing experience.

Could you provide your understanding of this question?

Dear olnata,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, I don't have the highest opinion of this question. First of all, there's a suspect grammatical construction in the prompt:
Data shows that, over the past decade, 30% of CEO’s who have prior sales experience have successfully transformed the strategy of a company and taken a company into a completely new direction whereas only 20% of CEO’s with prior Marketing experience have done the same.
This should be
. . . whereas only 20% of CEO’s with prior Marketing experience have done so.
Substandard grammar is not exactly an endorsement for the question.

Similarly, in (C), there is something suspect and sloppy about calling one group "marketing CEOs," rather than "CEOs with marketing experience."

I think (C) is a reasonably good answer to the question. I think (B) is a little too good to be a wrong answer, and I think (A) & (D) & (E) are just out-in-left-field wrong, easy for most students to eliminate. The author of the question has utterly failed to write GMAT-like distractors.

Overall, this is not the highest quality question. As with many poor quality GMAT verbal practice questions, this replicates the general format of the question nad has an appropriate topic, and unlike many, it even has a solid OA, but the four incorrect answers are by far the weakest part of the question.

I would give this question a grade of a D.

Here's a much high quality CR practice question:

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thanks a lot Mike for your response!
It was really helpful for me to see your deep analysis of this question.
BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1211
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2017, 10:35
mikemcgarry wrote:
olnata wrote:
Most CEO’s have either sales or marketing experience prior to becoming the CEO. Data shows that, over the past decade, 30% of CEO’s who have prior sales experience have successfully transformed the strategy of a company and taken a company into a completely new direction whereas only 20% of CEO’s with prior Marketing experience have done the same. Therefore, it can be argued that CEO’s with prior sales experience are more successful in transforming the strategy of company than those with Marketing experience.

In evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

A. Whether there have been more CEO’s with sales experience than marketing experience in the past decade.

B. What skills does a prior Sales experience impart to a CEO that a marketing job does not.

C. Whether a greater percentage of CEO’s with Sales experience were required to transform the strategy of a company than the percentage of marketing CEO’s.

D. Whether the shareholder returns provided by the CEO’s with Sales experience were greater than those provided by CEO’s with marketing experience.

E. Whether CEO’s with Sales experience cost the organization more than CEO’s with marketing experience.

Could you provide your understanding of this question?

Dear olnata,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, I don't have the highest opinion of this question. First of all, there's a suspect grammatical construction in the prompt:
Data shows that, over the past decade, 30% of CEO’s who have prior sales experience have successfully transformed the strategy of a company and taken a company into a completely new direction whereas only 20% of CEO’s with prior Marketing experience have done the same.
This should be
. . . whereas only 20% of CEO’s with prior Marketing experience have done so.
Substandard grammar is not exactly an endorsement for the question.

Similarly, in (C), there is something suspect and sloppy about calling one group "marketing CEOs," rather than "CEOs with marketing experience."

I think (C) is a reasonably good answer to the question. I think (B) is a little too good to be a wrong answer, and I think (A) & (D) & (E) are just out-in-left-field wrong, easy for most students to eliminate. The author of the question has utterly failed to write GMAT-like distractors.

Overall, this is not the highest quality question. As with many poor quality GMAT verbal practice questions, this replicates the general format of the question nad has an appropriate topic, and unlike many, it even has a solid OA, but the four incorrect answers are by far the weakest part of the question.

I would give this question a grade of a D.

Here's a much high quality CR practice question:

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hello mikemcgarry,

Can you please throw some light as to why option "A" is not correct and why "C" is correct?

My understanding of option A: There are 100 CEOs with sales exp and 1000 with marketing exp. 30% of 100=30 and 20% of 1000=200.
Clearly 200>30. This is option "A" for me. How can "A" be wrong? For comparison we ought to have a solid proof and not just %.

My understanding of option "C": If greater number of CEOs with sales exp are required to transform a plan than the comparison is wrong. Also if greater number of CEOs with sales exp are not required to transform a plan, then also we can't say anything since the premise gives us % and not numbers.

I mean to say is we can't say anything without numbers, right?

Please throw some light on this.

Regards
_________________
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4485

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2017, 16:36
gmatexam439 wrote:
Hello mikemcgarry,

Can you please throw some light as to why option "A" is not correct and why "C" is correct?

My understanding of option A: There are 100 CEOs with sales exp and 1000 with marketing exp. 30% of 100=30 and 20% of 1000=200.
Clearly 200>30. This is option "A" for me. How can "A" be wrong? For comparison we ought to have a solid proof and not just %.

My understanding of option "C": If greater number of CEOs with sales exp are required to transform a plan than the comparison is wrong. Also if greater number of CEOs with sales exp are not required to transform a plan, then also we can't say anything since the premise gives us % and not numbers.

I mean to say is we can't say anything without numbers, right?

Please throw some light on this.

Regards

Dear gmatexam439

I'm happy to respond.

First of all, this is a low-quality question. You will not necessarily get as much from diving into an analysis of a low-quality question. For the official questions and other high-quality questions, it's well worthwhile to dive deep in, but not so with the poor questions.

If the groups are two different sizes then in general, percents would be the correct way to compare the success rates.

It's true that if one group were in the hundreds and the other group were only single digit, then there would be so much uncertainty in the smaller percent that it wouldn't make sense to compare them (e.g. if one out of 5 CEO’s with prior Marketing experience have successfully transformed her company's strategy, that's 20%, but if one more or one fewer did so, the percentage would be quite different!)

"Most CEO’s have either sales or marketing experience prior to becoming the CEO. Data shows that, over the past decade, . . . "
We don't know the exact context, but the implication is that we are discussing either the whole of the global economy or an extremely large economy (the US, the EU, etc.) Of course, a high quality question would make clear the exact economy under evaluation. We are talking about large numbers: for example, there are over 27M businesses in the US. The prompt says "most" are in these two categories--perhaps there's a small number with other backgrounds, such as engineering, but "most" implies two gigantic portions of this large economy. We don't know how the two sizes compare, but if this is in the US, they will both be numbers in the millions. We simply are not going to run into the mathematical problems that you are anticipating. The percents in each category will be meaningful rates, and it makes sense to compare these rates.

Choice (C) does ask a more pertinent question: "Whether a greater percentage of CEO’s with Sales experience were required to transform the strategy of a company than the percentage of marketing CEO’s."
Transforming the strategy of a company is not a good thing to do if the company operating perfectly fine with its current strategy. One of the first rules of business world is: don't fix what's not broken. It is the difference in percentages a matter of the skill sets of the two kinds of CEOs, or does it have to do with the kinds of companies and kinds of business situations that the two kinds of CEOs tend to inherit when they take the helm?

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)
BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1211
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2017, 23:28
mikemcgarry wrote:
Dear gmatexam439

I'm happy to respond.

First of all, this is a low-quality question. You will not necessarily get as much from diving into an analysis of a low-quality question. For the official questions and other high-quality questions, it's well worthwhile to dive deep in, but not so with the poor questions.

If the groups are two different sizes then in general, percents would be the correct way to compare the success rates.

It's true that if one group were in the hundreds and the other group were only single digit, then there would be so much uncertainty in the smaller percent that it wouldn't make sense to compare them (e.g. if one out of 5 CEO’s with prior Marketing experience have successfully transformed her company's strategy, that's 20%, but if one more or one fewer did so, the percentage would be quite different!)

"Most CEO’s have either sales or marketing experience prior to becoming the CEO. Data shows that, over the past decade, . . . "
We don't know the exact context, but the implication is that we are discussing either the whole of the global economy or an extremely large economy (the US, the EU, etc.) Of course, a high quality question would make clear the exact economy under evaluation. We are talking about large numbers: for example, there are over 27M businesses in the US. The prompt says "most" are in these two categories--perhaps there's a small number with other backgrounds, such as engineering, but "most" implies two gigantic portions of this large economy. We don't know how the two sizes compare, but if this is in the US, they will both be numbers in the millions. We simply are not going to run into the mathematical problems that you are anticipating. The percents in each category will be meaningful rates, and it makes sense to compare these rates.

Choice (C) does ask a more pertinent question: "Whether a greater percentage of CEO’s with Sales experience were required to transform the strategy of a company than the percentage of marketing CEO’s."
Transforming the strategy of a company is not a good thing to do if the company operating perfectly fine with its current strategy. One of the first rules of business world is: don't fix what's not broken. It is the difference in percentages a matter of the skill sets of the two kinds of CEOs, or does it have to do with the kinds of companies and kinds of business situations that the two kinds of CEOs tend to inherit when they take the helm?

Does all this make sense?
Mike

hehehe it made some sense. Albeit, like you said, I will not waste time on this question anymore

Thank you for responding quickly.
Regards
_________________
Re: CR question confusion   [#permalink] 14 Aug 2017, 23:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by