It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 19:33

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

3 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 6

Kudos [?]: 12 [3], given: 0

In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Oct 2009, 23:28
3
This post received
KUDOS
8
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

66% (01:32) correct 34% (01:46) wrong based on 668 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its total budget on the production of ten albums, 30% of its budget on the marketing of these albums, and the remainder of its budget on overhead costs. In the same year, the Song Factory Record Company spent 20% of its total budget on the production of 10 albums and 60% of its budget on the marketing of these albums. Making Hits sold a total of 800,000 copies of the ten records it produced in 2003, while the Song Factory sold a total of 1,600,000 copies of the ten records it produced in 2003.

Assuming each company met its budget, which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information given above?

(A) The amount of money spent on marketing is directly related to the number of copies sold.
(B) Making Hits spent more money on the production of its albums in 2003 than did the Song Factory.
(C) Song Factory’s total revenue from the sale of albums produced in 2003 was higher than that of Making Hits.
(D) In 2003, Making Hits spent a larger percentage of its budget on overhead costs than did the Song Factory.
(E) The Song Factory sold more copies of its 2003 albums than Making Hits did because the Song Factory
spent a higher percentage of its budget on the marketing of its albums.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 12 [3], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 326

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 5

Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2009, 02:31
In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its total budget on the production of ten albums, 30% of its budget on the marketing of these albums, and the remainder of its budget on overhead costs. In the same year, the Song Factory Record Company spent 20% of its total budget on the production of 10 albums and 60% of its budget on the marketing of these albums. Making Hits sold a total of 800,000 copies of the ten records it produced in 2003, while the Song Factory sold a total of 1,600,000 copies of the ten records it produced in 2003.

Assuming each company met its budget, which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information given above?

(A) The amount of money spent on marketing is directly related to the number of copies sold.
( The deals with percentages so it is a very hard decision to take)
(B) Making Hits spent more money on the production of its albums in 2003 than did the Song Factory.
(40% of its total budget may or may not be greater than 20% of its total budget)
(C) Song Factory’s total revenue from the sale of albums produced in 2003 was higher than that of Making Hits.
( Cannot be said. Number of copies is higher does not indicate the total revenues are greater)
(D) In 2003, Making Hits spent a larger percentage of its budget on overhead costs than did the Song Factory.
( Nothing is told about Song Factory overhead cost)
(E) The Song Factory sold more copies of its 2003 albums than Making Hits did because the Song Factory spent a higher percentage of its budget on the marketing of its albums.( This seems good to me)
Reasonable conclusion to take. Will go for E.

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 5

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 875

Kudos [?]: 842 [1], given: 18

Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2009, 03:21
1
This post received
KUDOS
I will go with D on this one.

Even if nothing is mentioned specifically about the overhead costs of SFRC, we get a clear hint that the overhead costs can be max 20% ( in case there are no other costs involved ) or 0% ( in case other costs are involved ). The budget cant overshoot 100%, so D makes sense.

Kudos [?]: 842 [1], given: 18

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 75

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2009, 10:13
IMO E..OA pls

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 222

Kudos [?]: 138 [0], given: 13

Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2009, 10:24
Economist wrote:
I will go with D on this one.

Even if nothing is mentioned specifically about the overhead costs of SFRC, we get a clear hint that the overhead costs can be max 20% ( in case there are no other costs involved ) or 0% ( in case other costs are involved ). The budget cant overshoot 100%, so D makes sense.


Yes, D it is. Good explanation. A and E both looks attractive but D is correct one.

Kudos [?]: 138 [0], given: 13

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 75

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2009, 12:20
I shall switch to D. :-D
E indicated the marketing as only cause of increase in sales...but sales may increase due to other factors!
OA pls

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 6

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2009, 19:30
Yes Guys.

D is the Answer.

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 42

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2009, 06:41
Mega2010 wrote:
In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its total budget on the production of ten albums, 30% of its budget on the marketing of these albums, and the remainder of its budget on overhead costs. In the same year, the Song Factory Record Company spent 20% of its total budget on the production of 10 albums and 60% of its budget on the marketing of these albums. Making Hits sold a total of 800,000 copies of the ten records it produced in 2003, while the Song Factory sold a total of 1,600,000 copies of the ten records it produced in 2003.

Assuming each company met its budget, which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information given above?

(A) The amount of money spent on marketing is directly related to the number of copies sold.
(B) Making Hits spent more money on the production of its albums in 2003 than did the Song Factory.
(C) Song Factory’s total revenue from the sale of albums produced in 2003 was higher than that of Making Hits.
(D) In 2003, Making Hits spent a larger percentage of its budget on overhead costs than did the Song Factory.
(E) The Song Factory sold more copies of its 2003 albums than Making Hits did because the Song Factory
spent a higher percentage of its budget on the marketing of its albums.


I choose D as my answer. For example, The Making Hit Record Company spent 40% of its budget on the production of 10 albums, 30% on marketing, while the remainder percentage, which is 30% on overhead costs. We can also calculate the overhead costs for The Song Factor to be 20%. The problem with E is that we can't tell what's causing The Song Factory to seel more copies. We just know that they did.

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 42

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2009, 06:54
Mega2010 wrote:
In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its total budget on the production of ten albums, 30% of its budget on the marketing of these albums, and the remainder of its budget on overhead costs. In the same year, the Song Factory Record Company spent 20% of its total budget on the production of 10 albums and 60% of its budget on the marketing of these albums. Making Hits sold a total of 800,000 copies of the ten records it produced in 2003, while the Song Factory sold a total of 1,600,000 copies of the ten records it produced in 2003.

Assuming each company met its budget, which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information given above?

(A) The amount of money spent on marketing is directly related to the number of copies sold.
(B) Making Hits spent more money on the production of its albums in 2003 than did the Song Factory.
(C) Song Factory’s total revenue from the sale of albums produced in 2003 was higher than that of Making Hits.
(D) In 2003, Making Hits spent a larger percentage of its budget on overhead costs than did the Song Factory.
(E) The Song Factory sold more copies of its 2003 albums than Making Hits did because the Song Factory
spent a higher percentage of its budget on the marketing of its albums.


I choose D as my answer. For example, The Making Hit Record Company spent 40% of its budget on the production of 10 albums, 30% on marketing, while the remainder percentage, which is 30% on overhead costs. We can also calculate the overhead costs for The Song Factor to be 20%. The problem with E is that we can't tell what's causing The Song Factory to sell more copies. We just know that they did.

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

10 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 91 [10], given: 0

GMAT ToolKit User
In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2010, 01:20
10
This post received
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its total budget on the production of ten albums, 30% of
its budget on the marketing of these albums, and the remainder of its budget on overhead costs. In the same year,
the Song Factory Record Company spent 20% of its total budget on the production of 10 albums and 60% of its
budget on the marketing of these albums. Making Hits sold a total of 800,000 copies of the ten records it produced
in 2003, while the Song Factory sold a total of 1,600,000 copies of the ten records it produced in 2003.

Assuming each company met its budget, which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information given
above?

• The amount of money spent on marketing is directly related to the number of copies sold.

• Making Hits spent more money on the production of its albums in 2003 than did the Song Factory.

• Song Factory’s total revenue from the sale of albums produced in 2003 was higher than that of Making Hits.

• In 2003, Making Hits spent a larger percentage of its budget on overhead costs than did the Song Factory.

• The Song Factory sold more copies of its 2003 albums than Making Hits did because the Song Factory spent a
higher percentage of its budget on the marketing of its albums.



Press kudos if you like this one :)

will post some more similar questions 750+ level :)

Kudos [?]: 91 [10], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Posts: 223

Kudos [?]: 321 [0], given: 21

Location: India
WE 1: 6 Year, Telecom(GSM)
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2010, 02:03
Got it right.Only D gives a clear cut conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 321 [0], given: 21

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Aug 2010
Posts: 13

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

Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2010, 02:05
Picked C

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

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 91 [1], given: 0

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2010, 02:36
1
This post received
KUDOS
@rudransh:
C is irrerelvent .. out of scope..just check once more...
for more clarity ..try my method of solving CR questions at ..

cr-solving-methods-102443.html

i got benefitted greatly

and please give me feedback..about this method 's performance..

n dont forget to press KUDOS..in case u like it:)

Kudos [?]: 91 [1], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 1

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

Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2010, 03:06
yup got it ..is D

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

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 218

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 5

Location: Boston
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2010, 08:13
harshsingla wrote:
In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its total budget on the production of ten albums, 30% of
its budget on the marketing of these albums, and the remainder of its budget on overhead costs. In the same year,
the Song Factory Record Company spent 20% of its total budget on the production of 10 albums and 60% of its
budget on the marketing of these albums. Making Hits sold a total of 800,000 copies of the ten records it produced
in 2003, while the Song Factory sold a total of 1,600,000 copies of the ten records it produced in 2003. Assuming
each company met its budget, which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information given
above?
• The amount of money spent on marketing is directly related to the number of copies sold.
• Making Hits spent more money on the production of its albums in 2003 than did the Song Factory.
• Song Factory’s total revenue from the sale of albums produced in 2003 was higher than that of Making Hits.
• In 2003, Making Hits spent a larger percentage of its budget on overhead costs than did the Song Factory.
• The Song Factory sold more copies of its 2003 albums than Making Hits did because the Song Factory spent a
higher percentage of its budget on the marketing of its albums.



Press kudos if you like this one :)

will post some more similar questions 750+ level :)


Is this really 700+?

D is clearly the only possible answer, and it doesn't require any reasoning - it's directly stated in the article that Making Hits spent 30% while Song Factory spent 20%.

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 5

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Affiliations: Veritas Prep
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Posts: 13

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2010, 09:40
This is one of those CR problems that's a quant problem in disguise. What they're really asking you to do is crunch the numbers and realize that Making Hits spent 30% of its budget on overhead, whereas the maximum possible that Song Factory could have spent on overhead was 20% of its budget. Because we don't know the actual numbers that those percentages are taken of, we can't compare amounts of money, eliminating A) and B). We don't know the selling price of the albums, eliminating C). And E) suggests a cause and effect relationship that goes to far in reaching for a conclusion. The correct answer, D), demonstrates what is so often true on inference problems: a conservative answer is a better answer.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Status: battlecruiser, operational...
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 982

Kudos [?]: 170 [0], given: 71

Schools: Carey '16
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2010, 11:45
picked D was between D and C so I kinda guessed at the last minute.
_________________

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 170 [0], given: 71

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 625

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

Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Apr 2011, 09:54
D is more direct and E is kind of shell game.
_________________

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

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

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 139

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 1

In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2011, 06:41
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its total budget on the production of ten albums, 30% of its budget on the marketing of these albums, and the remainder of its budget on overhead costs. In the same year, the Song Factory Record Company spent 20% of its total budget on the production of 10 albums and 60% of its budget on the marketing of these albums. Making Hits sold a total of 800,000 copies of the ten records it produced in 2003, while the Song Factory sold a total of 1,600,000 copies of the ten records it produced in 2003.

Assuming each company met its budget, which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information given above?
The amount of money spent on marketing is directly related to the number of copies sold.
Making Hits spent more money on the production of its albums in 2003 than did the Song Factory.
Song Factory’s total revenue from the sale of albums produced in 2003 was higher than that of Making Hits.
In 2003, Making Hits spent a larger percentage of its budget on overhead costs than did the Song Factory.
The Song Factory sold more copies of its 2003 albums than Making Hits did because the Song Factory spent a higher percentage of its budget on the marketing of its albums.

Please go ahead with the explanations..

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 1

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Aug 2011
Posts: 59

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 6

Re: CR-Making Hits record. [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2011, 06:56
D

The amount of money spent on marketing is directly related to the number of copies sold.
==> We don't know about the amount

Making Hits spent more money on the production of its albums in 2003 than did the Song Factory.
==> See A

Song Factory’s total revenue from the sale of albums produced in 2003 was higher than that of Making Hits.
==> No information given on $

In 2003, Making Hits spent a larger percentage of its budget on overhead costs than did the Song Factory.
==> Hold

The Song Factory sold more copies of its 2003 albums than Making Hits did because the Song Factory spent a higher percentage of its budget on the marketing of its albums.
==> Causal relation can't be assumed

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 6

Re: CR-Making Hits record.   [#permalink] 31 Aug 2011, 06:56

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 58 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.