It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 08:22

# Live Now:

### 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

# Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 306

Kudos [?]: 31 [2], given: 33

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2011, 10:04
2
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

73% (01:11) correct 27% (01:23) wrong based on 410 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in revenue, and was featured in 8 major articles in the fashion press. This year, our company’s revenue has practically quadrupled, so we should expect to be featured in at least 20 major articles in the fashion press.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the fashion executive’s reasoning in the above argument?

(A) A competing fashion line was featured more often in the fashion press after its revenues increased.

(B) Five years ago, the company’s revenue was less than \$1 million, and the company was not featured in any major articles in the fashion press.

(C) The company’s revenue nearly quadrupled because of the introduction of a fashion line geared for sale in the European fashion capital of Milan; however, most of the fashion press is headquartered domestically in New York.

(D) A major automaker in the region was the subject of twice as many features in auto industry press when the automaker filed for bankruptcy.

(E) The company’s revenue increased dramatically because of the introduction of lower-priced lines sold in nationwide discount chains, greatly reducing the brand’s cachet among fashion journalists.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 31 [2], given: 33

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 306

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 33

Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2011, 10:09
I found the answer quite confusing. I will post the explanation after a few attempts are made.

A and D are absolutely irrelevant.

B - may show that there is no linear relation to revenue and number of articles posted- but i still find this a weak choice.

C - It is possible given that the fashion press is in NY, the buzz was elsewhere.

E- ??

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 33

Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2011
Posts: 185

Kudos [?]: 152 [0], given: 3

Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2011, 10:15
C suggests that while company's activities in high fashion has expanded, the location of headquarter of fashion press can dampen the coverage - not a very strong link as location of headquarter doesnt imply restricted coverage area. However, in E, company's expansion is in an area that is of no interest to fashion press 9located anywhere), so E weakens the assumption the most.

Kudos [?]: 152 [0], given: 3

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 871

Kudos [?]: 396 [0], given: 123

Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2011, 10:50
the arg is confusing the correlation with causality. More revenue means more attention of fashion press. However if the revenue increased due to discount sales - the arg goes for a toss. Clean E.

C is irrelevant. Since location is not the issue - the "attention" of the press or number of articles published in the fashion press is at issue.

Kudos [?]: 396 [0], given: 123

Manager
Joined: 08 Dec 2010
Posts: 199

Kudos [?]: 54 [1], given: 26

WE 1: 4 yr IT
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2011, 11:44
1
KUDOS
mbafall2011 wrote:
Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in revenue, and was featured in 8 major articles in the fashion press. This year, our company’s revenue has practically quadrupled, so we should expect to be featured in at least 20 major articles in the fashion press.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the fashion executive’s reasoning in the above argument?

A)A competing fashion line was featured more often in the fashion press after its revenues increased.

b)Five years ago, the company’s revenue was less than \$1 million, and the company was not featured in any major articles in the fashion press.

c)The company’s revenue nearly quadrupled because of the introduction of a fashion line geared for sale in the European fashion capital of Milan; however, most of the fashion press is headquartered domestically in New York.

d)A major automaker in the region was the subject of twice as many features in auto industry press when the automaker filed for bankruptcy.

e)The company’s revenue increased dramatically because of the introduction of lower-priced lines sold in nationwide discount chains, greatly reducing the brand’s cachet among fashion journalists.

IMO D.
Here is my reasoning behind the answer. The fashion executive thinks revenue is linked to number of articles. So more revenue= more articles. what would undermine this? an example showing more revenue but less articles or less revenue more articles.
A) this is strengthening the executive's point of view.
B) ditto.
C)where they settled does not have a bearing. after all there is no proof that the previous products were sold locally.
D)good one. example showing less revenue more articles.
E)O.K. it lost its cachet among journalists. so what? they might write a negative review. but that too counts as an article. it is not as if all the articles previously written were favourable. There is no link in the CR between the uniqueness of the product(cachet=uniqueness/individuality for those who don't know.) and the number of articles.
_________________

this time, we play for keeps

Kudos [?]: 54 [1], given: 26

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 306

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 33

Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2011, 12:31
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
vinzycoolfire wrote:
mbafall2011 wrote:
Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in revenue, and was featured in 8 major articles in the fashion press. This year, our company’s revenue has practically quadrupled, so we should expect to be featured in at least 20 major articles in the fashion press.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the fashion executive’s reasoning in the above argument?

A)A competing fashion line was featured more often in the fashion press after its revenues increased.

b)Five years ago, the company’s revenue was less than \$1 million, and the company was not featured in any major articles in the fashion press.

c)The company’s revenue nearly quadrupled because of the introduction of a fashion line geared for sale in the European fashion capital of Milan; however, most of the fashion press is headquartered domestically in New York.

d)A major automaker in the region was the subject of twice as many features in auto industry press when the automaker filed for bankruptcy.

e)The company’s revenue increased dramatically because of the introduction of lower-priced lines sold in nationwide discount chains, greatly reducing the brand’s cachet among fashion journalists.

IMO D.
Here is my reasoning behind the answer. The fashion executive thinks revenue is linked to number of articles. So more revenue= more articles. what would undermine this? an example showing more revenue but less articles or less revenue more articles.
A) this is strengthening the executive's point of view.
B) ditto.
C)where they settled does not have a bearing. after all there is no proof that the previous products were sold locally.
D)good one. example showing less revenue more articles.
E)O.K. it lost its cachet among journalists. so what? they might write a negative review. but that too counts as an article. it is not as if all the articles previously written were favourable. There is no link in the CR between the uniqueness of the product(cachet=uniqueness/individuality for those who don't know.) and the number of articles.

B does not strengthen the exec's view. at best, it shows that there is no relationship between the cause and effect

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 33

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 306

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 33

Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2011, 12:32
The executive argues that, if \$5M in revenue gets the company 8 articles, \$20M in revenue ought to get the company at least 20 articles – that is, that the number of times the company will be featured in the press is proportional to the company’s revenue.

The question asks which of the statements, if true, weighs most heavily against the executive’s reasoning.

A. This statement support’s the executive’s conclusion. Incorrect.

B. This statement provides some support to the idea that revenue is proportional to press. Incorrect.

C. The passage gives no indication that New York fashion journalists would be disinterested in writing about a fashion line that has become successful in the fashionable city of Milan. Incorrect.

D. This statement seems to imply that low revenues can correlate to more feature articles in the press. The statement does not indicate that high revenues could not also lead to more feature articles in the press. Comparing the experience of an automaker to that of a fashion line also introduces the major assumption that the two are analogous. Incorrect.

E. The explanation that revenue increased due to the fashion line’s introducing a discount line sold in stores not highly regarded by the fashion press casts serious doubt on the conclusion that the press would feature the line in many more articles than it did last year. Answer choice E is correct.

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 33

Manager
Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Posts: 148

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 18

Nationality: Indian
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2011, 13:39
E is correct since only it can explain why the increase in revenues won't translate into more articles in fashion magazines. We have to assume that number of articles depend on the revenues, as the question implies.
_________________

You have to have a darkness...for the dawn to come.

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 18

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 306

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 33

Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2011, 16:53
Cachet means a characteristic feature or quality conferring prestige

I think if they had used simpler words, it would have been easier.

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 33

Manager
Joined: 08 Dec 2010
Posts: 199

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 26

WE 1: 4 yr IT
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Feb 2011, 10:07
I am still not convinced about E. there is no proof that they wrote articles based on their preferences. it is still debatable IMO. Real GMAT questions will never be like this.
_________________

this time, we play for keeps

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 26

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 306

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 33

Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Feb 2011, 10:39
vinzycoolfire wrote:
I am still not convinced about E. there is no proof that they wrote articles based on their preferences. it is still debatable IMO. Real GMAT questions will never be like this.

This comes from MGMAT which is pretty reliable- but im glad to know im not the only one!

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 33

Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Posts: 202

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 5

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q44 V39
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2011, 04:53
I feel E attacks the assumption correctly. But i also agree that E is not entirely convincing and so is the prompt.

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 5

Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1635

Kudos [?]: 1105 [0], given: 109

Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2011, 19:01
+1 E

A- Out of scope
B - Opposite. Actually, it strenghts the argument.
C - The new yorker press can write about fashion in Milan.
D - out of scope. This is a different industry.
E - Correct. Journalists are not interested in the new lines of the company, therefore they won't write articles about them.
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1105 [0], given: 109

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 306

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 33

Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2011, 23:15
metallicafan wrote:
+1 E

A- Out of scope
B - Opposite. Actually, it strenghts the argument.
C - The new yorker press can write about fashion in Milan.
D - out of scope. This is a different industry.
E - Correct. Journalists are not interested in the new lines of the company, therefore they won't write articles about them.

After reading the CR bible again, i can see that C is clearly out. C tells us that the fashion press is in Ny and the action was in Milan but nothing tells us that they wont write about it. In weaken questions, we have to use only the information in the 5 options as true.

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 33

Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1635

Kudos [?]: 1105 [0], given: 109

Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2011, 08:39
mbafall2011 wrote:
metallicafan wrote:
+1 E

A- Out of scope
B - Opposite. Actually, it strenghts the argument.
C - The new yorker press can write about fashion in Milan.
D - out of scope. This is a different industry.
E - Correct. Journalists are not interested in the new lines of the company, therefore they won't write articles about them.

After reading the CR bible again, i can see that C is clearly out. C tells us that the fashion press is in Ny and the action was in Milan but nothing tells us that they wont write about it. In weaken questions, we have to use only the information in the 5 options as true.

That book is great for CR. The key is memorizing the families, and how they work.
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1105 [0], given: 109

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 306

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 33

Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2011, 10:39
metallicafan wrote:
mbafall2011 wrote:
metallicafan wrote:
+1 E

A- Out of scope
B - Opposite. Actually, it strenghts the argument.
C - The new yorker press can write about fashion in Milan.
D - out of scope. This is a different industry.
E - Correct. Journalists are not interested in the new lines of the company, therefore they won't write articles about them.

After reading the CR bible again, i can see that C is clearly out. C tells us that the fashion press is in Ny and the action was in Milan but nothing tells us that they wont write about it. In weaken questions, we have to use only the information in the 5 options as true.

That book is great for CR. The key is memorizing the families, and how they work.

Agreed that the book is great! but i just broadly understood the families and instead pay attention to the right/wrong answers types to look out for.

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 33

Director
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 624

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 51

Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2011, 05:30
E is the only answer which provides a definite reason for a lack of linear relationship
_________________

What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 51

SVP
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 1598

Kudos [?]: 592 [0], given: 36

Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2011, 05:44
E, as it introduces a theory that can undermine the correlation of cause and effect.
_________________

Formula of Life -> Achievement/Potential = k * Happiness (where k is a constant)

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 592 [0], given: 36

Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Posts: 357

Kudos [?]: 270 [1], given: 87

Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2012, 11:24
1
KUDOS
Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in revenue, and was featured in 8 major articles in the fashion press. This year, our company’s revenue has practically quadrupled, so we should expect to be featured in at least 20 major articles in the fashion press.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the fashion executive’s reasoning in the above argument?

(A) A competing fashion line was featured more often in the fashion press after its revenues increased.

(B) Five years ago, the company’s revenue was less than \$1 million, and the company was not featured in any major articles in the fashion press.

(C) The company’s revenue nearly quadrupled because of the introduction of a fashion line geared for sale in the European fashion capital of Milan; however, most of the fashion press is headquartered domestically in New York.

(D) A major automaker in the region was the subject of twice as many features in auto industry press when the automaker filed for bankruptcy.

(E) The company’s revenue increased dramatically because of the introduction of lower-priced lines sold in nationwide discount chains, greatly reducing the brand’s cachet among fashion journalists.

Kudos [?]: 270 [1], given: 87

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1109

Kudos [?]: 1170 [1], given: 29

Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2012, 01:10
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
The underlying assumption here is that major articles are directly correlated to revenues. We have no reason to believe that the industry actually works that way, so there are many possible ways to weaken the argument. There are many new ideas that, if true, would break the feeble connection between the premise and the conclusion in this argument. Here are a few that would work:

1) Major articles are typically written about brands that fashion journalists find new and exciting, and sales volume has little influence in such matters.
2) Only revenue from new designs influences what brands get written about, and most of the company's revenue this year is from old designs.
3) Fashion companies with revenue of more than \$10 million a year are seen as "too corporate" by fashion journalists, and are not often featured in major articles.
4) No company is featured in more than one major article per month.

I'm sure you can think of plenty more along these lines. So what about C? That seems tempting. If all the journalism action is in New York, maybe efforts in Milan will not get much attention. But we have to be careful here. The choice just says that the fashion press is mostly *headquartered* in New York. That tells us nothing about what coverage they provide in Milan. Besides, a few journalists in Milan might be able to produce 20 major articles on their own! We just don’t have enough information.

E, on the other hand, provides some new information. The company’s new lines are not of great interest to fashion journalists. Therefore they may not be featured in many articles, and we certainly have no reason to believe that they will be featured four times as often as last year. E weakens the argument.
_________________

Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Kudos [?]: 1170 [1], given: 29

Re: Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in   [#permalink] 05 Feb 2012, 01:10

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 24 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Fashion Executive: Last year, our company had \$5 million in

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.