It is currently 21 Feb 2018, 17:08

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 6
In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2009, 22:28
3
KUDOS
8
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

67% (01:31) correct 33% (01:42) wrong based on 751 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
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 324
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2009, 01:31
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.
(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.
Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 872
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

11 Oct 2009, 02:21
1
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.
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 74
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2009, 09:13
IMO E..OA pls
Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 220
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2009, 09:24
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.
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 74
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2009, 11:20
I shall switch to D.
E indicated the marketing as only cause of increase in sales...but sales may increase due to other factors!
OA pls
Intern
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 6
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2009, 18:30
Yes Guys.

Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 42
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2009, 05:41
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.
Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 42
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2009, 05:54
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.
Intern
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 20
In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2010, 00:20
10
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
Manager
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Posts: 223
Location: India
WE 1: 6 Year, Telecom(GSM)
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2010, 01:03
Got it right.Only D gives a clear cut conclusion.
Intern
Joined: 18 Aug 2010
Posts: 12
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2010, 01:05
Picked C
Intern
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2010, 01:36
1
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

n dont forget to press KUDOS..in case u like it:)
Intern
Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 1
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2010, 02:06
yup got it ..is D
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 217
Location: Boston
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2010, 07:13
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%.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: Veritas Prep
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Posts: 13
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2010, 08:40
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.
Moderator
Status: battlecruiser, operational...
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 979
Schools: Carey '16
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2010, 10:45
picked D was between D and C so I kinda guessed at the last minute.
_________________
Director
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 618
Re: In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2011, 08:54
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.

Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 138
In 2003, the Making Hits Record Company spent 40% of its [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2011, 05:41
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.

Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2011
Posts: 58

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2011, 05:56
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
Re: CR-Making Hits record.   [#permalink] 31 Aug 2011, 05:56

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 58 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by