Mainline Airways was bought by its employees six years ago.

Question

Mainline Airways was bought by its employees six years ago. Three years ago, Mainline hired QualiCo Advertising Agency to handle its promotions and advertising division. Today Mainline’s profits are over 20 percent higher than they were five years ago and 10 percent higher than they were three years ago. Employee ownership and a good advertising agency have combined to make Mainline more profitable.

Which of the following best describes the weak point in the argument above?

(A) It fails to establish a causal connection between the change in ownership at Mainline Airways and the hiring of QualiCo, on the one hand, and the rise in Mainline’s profits, on the other.
(B) It presents no evidence showing that employee-owned airlines are any more profitable than other airlines.
(C) It assumes that the profits of Mainline Airways will continue to rise.
(D) It gives no exact figures for the current profits of Mainline Airways.
(E) It fails to explain how the profits of Mainline Airways are calculated.

BarneyStinson · Accepted Answer

Straight-forward A, my take.

Mainline has huge employee stakes. Qualico, an advertising agency was bought. Today Mainline's profits are nice and healthy. So, huge employee stakes and acquiring an ad-agency are reasons for profits is the conclusion. Clearly, there is no proper justification for the conclusion. Anything could be the reason for the current profits other than the given two premises. The relationship posed is weak and open for a lot of debate. So that my friend, is the flaw in the reasoning.

joshnsit · Answer

Agreed-->
A - We do need to know how 2 things lead to the conclusion. Time period in itself is not able to create a causal connection. We need some thing such as... "employee productivity increased after employee take over and better advertising led to more clients thus company's profits increased ...blah blah"

But, choice B is not a bad option at all. In absence of A, I strongly believe this is a valid weakening contendor. Any takers for B in absence of A..... ????????

seekmba · Answer

OA is certainly (A). Thanks for the explanation.

carcass · Answer

At first instance I pick B but A is better.

The passage dis not mention anything about other companies, rivals and so on....BUT only that is profitable. The weak point is: we have some clue that say to us the reason why or better, a casual conclusion between that 2 elements and the rise of profits ?? No, so -> A is the answer.

however B is a good distraction

joshnsit · Answer

@carcass The point here is that we are talking of more profitability. As mentioned in the stimulus conclusion: Employee ownership and a good advertising agency have combined to make Mainline more profitable . One more correction I would like to make is that in strengthening and weakening, you can always introduce new elements in picture, so deleting them on the basis of being external would eliminate valid choices. Upon another look, I found that B talks only about one component ie "employee-owned airlines" and completely neglects QualiCo contribution. That seems to be a little minus in comparing B with A. But, I am still looking for a strong reason to kick B out.

CR champions --> F1 F1

carcass · Answer

I believe that you are looking at the question in the wrong way (in my opinion)

here the point is NOT more profitable, less profitable and so on: this is not the real point. On one hand we know that the company earn more money, ok, that say. On the other hand the stimulus says: Which of the following best describes the weak point in the argument above ? choice B suggest in somehow a general reason which demolishes the argument, instead A says: 2 (employee-owned)+2(QualiCo)= 4 (more profitable, little more profitable....who cares).......no evidence !!!!!

agdimple333 · Answer

After choice A; B can be 2nd weak attempt for this but than it doesn't say anything about promotions/advertising campaign. So take should be A.

joshnsit · Answer

Why not B? 
Would you have selected B in absence of A?

sudhir18n · Answer

In the absense of A, I would take E.

sanjoo · Answer

B is wrong..

is stimus contain anything abt other airlines?? its irrelavant to the conclusion.. it is not hitting the conclusion.. we dont need to hit by comparing with other companies?? we just care with mainline..

mohan514 · Answer

missed that one its a easy question
the length of the option deceived me

qweert · Answer

Between A & B.

B is "The Shell Game" distraction.

Therefore A is correct.

TGC · Answer

I don't know why people have a believe that choice (B) is a good contender.

IMHO, the stimulus is talking about profit comparison of same company at different times.

'More profitable' in the conclusion compares the current profit of the company with that in past.

So choice (A) is best

nhattruong1302 · Answer

Explanation for choice A

Type weaken

Conclusion: Employee ownership and advertising agency => Mainline more profitable

Assumption: Employess ownership and advertising agency cause mainline more profitable.

Break he assumption: there are other factorthat caused Mainline become more profit

gvij2017 · Answer

Two actions were taken by Airline and after years Airline claims profit increase due to the actions taken. 
Correlation to causation error. 
Choice A indicates that flaw.

nandeta · Answer

Argument: Employees bought the airways. They hired the advertising agency. And their profits shot up.
Conclusion: Employee ownership and good advertising agency is the reason behind the profit.
Assumption: There is a connection between employee ownership and profits.

Which of the following best describes the weak point in the argument above?

(A) It fails to establish a causal connection between the change in ownership at Mainline Airways and the hiring of QualiCo, on the one hand, and the rise in Mainline’s profits, on the other.
  Correct. Came to this through POE.

(B) It presents no evidence showing that employee-owned airlines are any more profitable than other airlines.
 Wrong. We are not comparing or discussing about other airline.

(C) It assumes that the profits of Mainline Airways will continue to rise.
 Wrong. We are only talking about past figures and not the future profits.

(D) It gives no exact figures for the current profits of Mainline Airways.
 Wrong. We don't need it. We have the percentage values to determine.

(E) It fails to explain how the profits of Mainline Airways are calculated.
 Wrong. We don't need their accounting method.

aarushi4101 · Answer

even after reading all the replies, its still hard for me to agree with option A as the answer.!!!!!

iBN · Answer

Yes I was wondering the same thing because if an employee buys company he will be a shareholder and that will affect the profit calculation compared to years ago. If employees buy the company..there will be only less salary to pay and shareholders get a cut from the profit. Not revenue

agrasan · Answer

To understand this question in a very simple language, the crux here is if events X, Y, Z happened together then we can't say that one of them led to another i.e., X or Y caused Z.

Similarly, in the argument above, we are just given that events happened together but given no evidence to establish a causal relationship (A + B --> C), thus,  A   is the best answer.

Mainline Airways was bought by its employees six years ago.

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Mainline Airways was bought by its employees six years ago.

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards