Shareholder: The company’s current operations are time-proven successe

Question

Shareholder: The company’s current operations are time-proven successes. The move into food services may siphon off funds needed by these other operations. Also, the food service industry is volatile, with a higher inherent risk than with, for instance, pharmaceuticals, another area into which the company has considered expanding.

If the shareholder’s statements are true, which one of the following is most strongly supported by them?

(A) The company’s present operations require increased funding.
(B) Investment into pharmaceuticals would not siphon off money from other operations.
(C) The company will lose money as it expands into the food service industry.
(D) Only if the company expands its operations into pharmaceuticals are increased profits possible.
(E) The company has a greater chance of losing money in food services than in pharmaceuticals.

ranforce · Answer

Only e holds water It’s 3 am, not in mood to explain

I’ll debrief in morning Posted from my mobile device

mSKR · Answer

a. increased funding : not given( only funding is mentioned. Funding may still remain same)
b. not given ( expansion may still need money)
c. can’t guarantee that it will lose money in food service industry for sure
d. Only ; makes it more precise, It may also increase profits if invest in food service industry.
e. yes; possible tone of losing more money in food services than pharmaceuticals.

Hence E

Gauriii · Answer

Shareholder: The company’s current operations are time-proven successes. The move into food services may siphon off funds needed by these other operations. Also, the food service industry is volatile, with a higher inherent risk than with, for instance, pharmaceuticals, another area into which the company has considered expanding.

If the shareholder’s statements are true, which one of the following is most strongly supported by them?

(A) The company’s present operations require increased funding.
No where it is mentioned that CURRENT situation requires funding

(B) Investment into pharmaceuticals would not siphon off money from other operations.
No mention of this anywhere

(C) The company will lose money as it expands into the food service industry.
The word WILL LOSE Money makes it wrong since the stimulus says MAY LOSE Money

(D) Only if the company expands its operations into pharmaceuticals are increased profits possible.
No where mentioned that ONLY if it expands into ops or pharma, then profits increase. dont assume...

(E) The company has a greater chance of losing money in food services than in pharmaceuticals.
only option left

PrinceVegeta · Answer

Shareholder: The company’s current operations are time-proven successes. The move into food services may siphon off funds needed by these other operations. Also, the food service industry is volatile, with a higher inherent risk than with, for instance, pharmaceuticals, another area into which the company has considered expanding.

If the shareholder’s statements are true, which one of the following is most strongly supported by them?
 
When you see support in the question check whether it has conclusion. if there's a conclusion it is a strengthen question otherwise it is an inference/must be true question. 
here there is no conclusion in the argument. so this is an inference question. 
Now we have to link the statements in the question to make a conclusion or we have to paraphrase the answer.
wrong answers would be : partial answers, exaggerated answers,new information, reverse wording and not considering every statement while answering

(A) The company’s present operations require increased funding.

we are not talking about increased funding. Atleast i cannot infer that from the above stimulus. eliminate it
 
 (B) Investment into pharmaceuticals would not siphon off money from other operations.

we cannot certainly say that. as it is too strong to be true, eliminate it.

(C) The company will lose money as it expands into the food service industry.

will is a strong word. In the stimulus, we are talking in the tone "may" which not as strong as will. eliminate it

(D) Only if the company expands its operations into pharmaceuticals are increased profits possible.

we are not certain whether we will get profits. So we cannot really infer that. eliminate it

(E) The company has a greater chance of losing money in food services than in pharmaceuticals.

This is the comparison that was made in the stimulus. So, this is a perfect restatement of it.

ANSWER_E

poojak2099 · Answer

E: Provided information: "Food industry is volatile, with a higher inherent risk than with, for instance, pharmaceuticals" helps to conclude that higher risk in food industry means the higher chances of loosing money in food services than in pharmaceuticals.

unraveled · Answer

Shareholder: The company’s current operations are time-proven successes. The move into food services  may  siphon off funds needed by these other operations. Also, the  food service industry is volatile , with a  higher inherent risk than with, for instance, pharmaceuticals , another area into which the company has considered expanding.

If the shareholder’s statements are true, which one of the following is most strongly supported by them?

(A) The company’s  present operations require increased funding . - WORNG. Present operations is not in scope so nothing can be said about it.
(B) Investment into pharmaceuticals  would not siphon off money  from other operations. - WRONG. It may or may not be so. Only thing about pharmaceuticals is its risk relative to food industry is known and nothing about money siphoning. 
(C) The company  will  lose money as it expands into the food service industry. - WRONG. Almost there but that certainty with which it says so is not inferable since passage uses "may". 
(D)  Only  if the company expands its operations into pharmaceuticals are  increased profits possible . - WORNG. On both fronts the choice loses out.
(E) The company has a  greater chance of losing money  in food services than in pharmaceuticals. - CORRECT. A comparison as per the passage. Highlighted text.

Answer E.

Paras96 · Answer

The shareholder's statements suggest concerns about the company's move into food services and its potential impact on the current operations and the inherent risk of the food service industry compared to pharmaceuticals. To determine what is most strongly supported by these statements, let's analyze the options:

(A) The company’s present operations require increased funding.
 - The shareholder's statements mention that the move into food services may siphon off funds needed by the current operations, which implies that the present operations may require increased funding. However, this option doesn't explicitly state that the present operations require increased funding, so it's not the most strongly supported.

(B) Investment into pharmaceuticals would not siphon off money from other operations.
 - The statements do not directly address whether investment in pharmaceuticals would siphon off money from other operations, so this option is not directly supported.

(C) The company will lose money as it expands into the food service industry.
 - The shareholder's statements express concerns about the food service industry's volatility and higher inherent risk compared to pharmaceuticals. While the statements suggest the potential for financial challenges in the food service industry, they do not definitively state that the company will lose money. So, this option is not the most strongly supported.

(D) Only if the company expands its operations into pharmaceuticals are increased profits possible.
 - This statement goes beyond what the shareholder's statements suggest. The statements express concerns about the food service industry's inherent risk but do not make a specific claim about increased profits being possible only through expansion into pharmaceuticals.

(E) The company has a greater chance of losing money in food services than in pharmaceuticals. 
 - The shareholder's statements do express concerns about the food service industry's volatility and higher inherent risk compared to pharmaceuticals. Therefore, the statement that the company has a greater chance of losing money in food services than in pharmaceuticals is most strongly supported by the shareholder's statements.

Option (E) is the most strongly supported by the shareholder's statements because it directly aligns with their concerns about the relative risks of the food service industry compared to pharmaceuticals.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Shareholder: The company’s current operations are time-proven successe

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

Shareholder: The company’s current operations are time-proven successe

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