GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 21 Aug 2018, 10:49

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

Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been

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

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 347
Location: Pakistan
Concentration: Strategy, International Business
GPA: 3.76
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Apr 2016, 01:19
iMyself wrote:
There has been given a discussion about a corporation. The corporation carries LIMITED fund.
What is limited fund? IS IT SPECIF? -Nope. It may be $ 50,000, $100,000, $200,000 or, $10,000,000. It actually depends on the company size or some other factors, isn’t it?

Suppose, Limited fund=$200,000
Let (according to correct answer option “E”),
(Dollar) needs to begin Cattle ranching=$100,000
(Dollar) needs to begin rubber-tapping=$200,000 (since rubber-tapping is twice as high as cattle ranching)

From the argument we’ve:

Cattle Ranching:
1. Lower profits
2. Destroy forest

Rubber Tapping:
1. Higher Profits
2. Do not destroy forest
Question Stem says: But, they still cattle ranch though rubber-tapping is BETTER….WHY?
Here is my question/reasoning on something:

GMAC says (since ‘E’ is correct choice):
Since (Dollar) required to begin a rubber-tapping operation is twice as high as the(Dollar) required to begin a cattle ranching, they DO cattle ranch AS THEY DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY.
[i]
So what? I can still DO rubber-tapping because the argument and answer option didn’t specifically say that IF THE AMOUNT IS $100,000, THEN IT IS LIMITED FUND, BUT IF IT IS MORE THAN or LESS THAN $100,000, THEN IT WON’T BE THE LIMITED FUND! So, I can choose $200,000 as LIMITED fund.
How can I be sure that the cattle ranching groups pursue LESS profit? They still earn MORE profit, because the limited fund doesn’t mean that it is JUST $50,000, it may be $200,000, too.--right? If I can earn MORE profit by limited fund ($200,000), which is needed to open a rubber-tapping operation, how/why I make LESS profit? I am still earning MORE profit by this LIMITED fund!
GMAC didn’t specifically say that Dollar needs to begin Cattle ranching=$100,000 and $$ needs to begin rubber-tapping=$200,000 (since rubber-tapping is twice as high as cattle ranching) or any SPECIFIC AMOUNT, which indicates that the fund is limited). If the argument DIRECTLY says that LIMITED fund IS $100,000, this CR will still not be okay because we are not informed the cost of cattle ranching or rubber-tapping!

The nitty-gritty: I want to say that I’ve to know the cost of cattle ranching, rubber-tapping, and the limited fund amount simultaneously. The reasoning of the argument along with correct answer option is fallacious, and thus it does not make any sense! I am not saying that GMAC is wrong; I just want to inform that something is missing in this CR. If something is missing in this CR, then GMAC’s thinking is wrong! :)

Analogy:
This question is totally related with decision-making.
Suppose:
I have an apartment, which consists of two rooms (Room# 1 and Room# 2). Here, this is not my job to invest in the room, which is BETTER; my job is to invest in that room, which is BETTER FOR ME as I am a decision-maker right on the moment.

Both rooms have special features. They are:

Room# 2 (equivalent to rubber-tapping):
1. It costs double than Room# 1, if I want to make it for the tenant to stay.
2. RISK factor: Tenants do not destroy anything in my room (tenants do not destroy anything because they are very good guys :)!)
3. It makes higher profit,

Room# 1(equivalent to cattle ranching):
1. It costs half of the Room# 2, if I want to make it for tenant to stay.
2. RISK factor: Sometimes, tenants destroy my television, freeze, AC and some other like this (this tenants are wicked guys :(!)
3. It makes lower profit.

Everyone wants to get high profit by investing on something; I am not regarding of that. The question is trying to give signal that I should choose one in which I can invest whole the money, which is in my pocket, in my bank account, and/or somewhere else (the total amount from these source is limited). To invest in something, at first I have to know the cost/price of that product and the volume of my fund-Is the fund enough or not? Here, I have a LIMITED fund. The fund may be worth $100,000 or $200,000, $600,000. I can’t invest in those ROOMS because I still do not know how much those rooms cost. Let, Room#2 costs $200,000 and Room#1 cost $100,000. Now, I’ll choose one, which is BETTER FOR ME not just better. I have a LIMITED fund. I do not know how much money in this fund. If the fund carries $200,000, then I must invest in Room# 2 to gain MORE profit. If the fund carries $100,000 then I must invest in Room#1 (here, I have to sacrifice higher profit as I do not have more money to invest in Room#2).---isn’t it?
But, I still do not know the volume of the fund and cost of Room# 1 & Room# 2. So, should I take decision to invest in Room# 1 or in Room# 2?----definitely not. So, how does GMAC take decision to invest in Cattle ranching without having enough information?!?

If my understanding is wrong, please correct me.
Thanks.

First of ALl in CR question one has to choose the best choice and E is best, no matter how strong or weak that choice is
it is already stated in the argument that the company is making profit with cattle ranching but that profit isnt too much
On the other hand rubber tapping will be more profitabl,e then why company is still using cattle ranching?
The reason is "as cattle ranching isnt that much profitable and rubber tapping requires huge initial capital investment then how come company can invest in such initial investment when they dont have enough money. The argument has said that cattle ranching isnt that much profitable.
suppose your profit per month is $10 and rubber tapping requires $1000 initial investment
that 10$ per month profit will take years to collect $1000 money to invest in rubber tapping
did u get my point?
_________________

Push yourself again and again. Don't give an inch until the final buzzer sounds. -Larry Bird
Success isn't something that just happens - success is learned, success is practiced and then it is shared. -Sparky Anderson
-S

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Apr 2015
Posts: 321
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, International Business
WE: Engineering (Consulting)
Re: Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Aug 2016, 10:44
(E) The amount of money required to begin a rubber-tapping operation is twice as high as the amount needed to begin a cattle ranch.

This is the only choice, that addresses the point about limited funds in the statement.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 428
GMAT ToolKit User
Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Feb 2017, 14:03
betterscore wrote:
Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been clearing large sections of the tropical Amazon forest for cattle ranching. This practice continues even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which does not destroy the forest, than from cattle ranching, which does destroy the forest.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why Suncorp has been pursuing the less profitable of the two economic activities mentioned above?

(A) The soil of the Amazon forest is very rich in nutrients that are important in the development of grazing lands.

(B) Cattle-ranching operations that are located in tropical climates are more profitable than cattle-ranching operations that are located in cold-weather climates.

(C) In certain districts, profits made from cattle ranching are more heavily taxed than profits made from any other industry.

(D) Some of the cattle that are raised on land cleared in the Amazon are killed by wildcats.

(E) The amount of money required to begin a rubber-tapping operation is twice as high as the amount needed to begin a cattle ranch.


Hi Expert,
There has been given a discussion about a corporation. The corporation carries LIMITED fund.
What is limited fund? IS IT SPECIF? -Nope. It may be $ 50,000, $100,000, $200,000 or, $10,000,000. It actually depends on the company size or some other factors, isn???t it?

Suppose, Limited fund=$200,000
Let (according to correct answer option E),
(Dollar) needs to begin Cattle ranching=$100,000
(Dollar) needs to begin rubber-tapping=$200,000 (since rubber-tapping is twice as high as cattle ranching)

From the argument we've:

Cattle Ranching:
1. Lower profits
2. Destroy forest

Rubber Tapping:
1. Higher Profits
2. Do not destroy forest
Question Stem says: But, they still cattle ranch though rubber-tapping is BETTER.WHY?
Here is my question/reasoning on something:

GMAC says (since E is correct choice):
Since (Dollar) required to begin a rubber-tapping operation is twice as high as the(Dollar) required to begin a cattle ranching, they DO cattle ranch AS THEY DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY.
[i]
So what? I can still DO rubber-tapping because the argument and answer option didn't specifically say that IF THE AMOUNT IS $100,000, THEN IT IS LIMITED FUND, BUT IF IT IS MORE THAN or LESS THAN $100,000, THEN IT WON'T BE THE LIMITED FUND! So, I can choose $200,000 as LIMITED fund.
How can I be sure that the cattle ranching groups pursue LESS profit? They still earn MORE profit, because the limited fund doesn't mean that it is JUST $50,000, it may be $200,000, too.--right? If I can earn MORE profit by limited fund ($200,000), which is needed to open a rubber-tapping operation, how/why I make LESS profit? I am still earning MORE profit by this LIMITED fund!
GMAC didn't specifically say that Dollar needs to begin Cattle ranching=$100,000 and $$ needs to begin rubber-tapping=$200,000 (since rubber-tapping is twice as high as cattle ranching) or any SPECIFIC AMOUNT, which indicates that the fund is limited). If the argument DIRECTLY says that LIMITED fund IS $100,000, this CR will still not be okay because we are not informed the cost of cattle ranching or rubber-tapping!

The nitty-gritty: I want to say that I've to know the cost of cattle ranching, rubber-tapping, and the limited fund amount simultaneously. The reasoning of the argument along with correct answer option is fallacious, and thus it does not make any sense! I am not saying that GMAC is wrong; I just want to inform that something is missing in this CR. If something is missing in this CR, then GMAC's thinking is wrong! :)

Analogy:
This question is totally related with decision-making.
Suppose:
I have an apartment, which consists of two rooms (Room# 1 and Room# 2). Here, this is not my job to invest in the room, which is BETTER; my job is to invest in that room, which is BETTER FOR ME as I am a decision-maker right on the moment.

Both rooms have special features. They are:

Room# 2 (equivalent to rubber-tapping):
1. It costs double than Room# 1, if I want to make it for the tenant to stay.
2. RISK factor: Tenants do not destroy anything in my room (tenants do not destroy anything because they are very good guys :)!)
3. It makes higher profit,

Room# 1(equivalent to cattle ranching):
1. It costs half of the Room# 2, if I want to make it for tenant to stay.
2. RISK factor: Sometimes, tenants destroy my television, freeze, AC and some other like this (this tenants are wicked guys :(!)
3. It makes lower profit.

Everyone wants to get high profit by investing on something; I am not regarding of that. The question is trying to give signal that I should choose one in which I can invest whole the money, which is in my pocket, in my bank account, and/or somewhere else (the total amount from these source is limited). To invest in something, at first I have to know the cost/price of that product and the volume of my fund-Is the fund enough or not? Here, I have a LIMITED fund. The fund may be worth $100,000 or $200,000, $600,000. I can't invest in those ROOMS because I still do not know how much those rooms cost. Let, Room#2 costs $200,000 and Room#1 cost $100,000. Now, I'll choose one, which is BETTER FOR ME not just better. I have a LIMITED fund. I do not know how much money in this fund. If the fund carries $200,000, then I must invest in Room# 2 to gain MORE profit. If the fund carries $100,000 then I must invest in Room#1 (here, I have to sacrifice higher profit as I do not have more money to invest in Room#2).---isn't it?
But, I still do not know the volume of the fund and cost of Room# 1 & Room# 2. So, should I take decision to invest in Room# 1 or in Room# 2?----definitely not. So, how does GMAC take decision to invest in Cattle ranching without having enough information?!?
I need to have an exact explanation why E is correct.

If my understanding is wrong, please correct me.
Thanks.
_________________

“The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained in sudden flight but, they while their companions slept, they were toiling upwards in the night.”
― Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3185
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Feb 2017, 05:58
iMyself wrote:
betterscore wrote:
Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been clearing large sections of the tropical Amazon forest for cattle ranching. This practice continues even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which does not destroy the forest, than from cattle ranching, which does destroy the forest.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why Suncorp has been pursuing the less profitable of the two economic activities mentioned above?

(A) The soil of the Amazon forest is very rich in nutrients that are important in the development of grazing lands.

(B) Cattle-ranching operations that are located in tropical climates are more profitable than cattle-ranching operations that are located in cold-weather climates.

(C) In certain districts, profits made from cattle ranching are more heavily taxed than profits made from any other industry.

(D) Some of the cattle that are raised on land cleared in the Amazon are killed by wildcats.

(E) The amount of money required to begin a rubber-tapping operation is twice as high as the amount needed to begin a cattle ranch.


Hi Expert,
There has been given a discussion about a corporation. The corporation carries LIMITED fund.
What is limited fund? IS IT SPECIF? -Nope. It may be $ 50,000, $100,000, $200,000 or, $10,000,000. It actually depends on the company size or some other factors, isn???t it?

Suppose, Limited fund=$200,000
Let (according to correct answer option E),
(Dollar) needs to begin Cattle ranching=$100,000
(Dollar) needs to begin rubber-tapping=$200,000 (since rubber-tapping is twice as high as cattle ranching)

From the argument we've:

Cattle Ranching:
1. Lower profits
2. Destroy forest

Rubber Tapping:
1. Higher Profits
2. Do not destroy forest
Question Stem says: But, they still cattle ranch though rubber-tapping is BETTER.WHY?
Here is my question/reasoning on something:

GMAC says (since E is correct choice):
Since (Dollar) required to begin a rubber-tapping operation is twice as high as the(Dollar) required to begin a cattle ranching, they DO cattle ranch AS THEY DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY.
[i]
So what? I can still DO rubber-tapping because the argument and answer option didn't specifically say that IF THE AMOUNT IS $100,000, THEN IT IS LIMITED FUND, BUT IF IT IS MORE THAN or LESS THAN $100,000, THEN IT WON'T BE THE LIMITED FUND! So, I can choose $200,000 as LIMITED fund.
How can I be sure that the cattle ranching groups pursue LESS profit? They still earn MORE profit, because the limited fund doesn't mean that it is JUST $50,000, it may be $200,000, too.--right? If I can earn MORE profit by limited fund ($200,000), which is needed to open a rubber-tapping operation, how/why I make LESS profit? I am still earning MORE profit by this LIMITED fund!
GMAC didn't specifically say that Dollar needs to begin Cattle ranching=$100,000 and $$ needs to begin rubber-tapping=$200,000 (since rubber-tapping is twice as high as cattle ranching) or any SPECIFIC AMOUNT, which indicates that the fund is limited). If the argument DIRECTLY says that LIMITED fund IS $100,000, this CR will still not be okay because we are not informed the cost of cattle ranching or rubber-tapping!

The nitty-gritty: I want to say that I've to know the cost of cattle ranching, rubber-tapping, and the limited fund amount simultaneously. The reasoning of the argument along with correct answer option is fallacious, and thus it does not make any sense! I am not saying that GMAC is wrong; I just want to inform that something is missing in this CR. If something is missing in this CR, then GMAC's thinking is wrong! :)

Analogy:
This question is totally related with decision-making.
Suppose:
I have an apartment, which consists of two rooms (Room# 1 and Room# 2). Here, this is not my job to invest in the room, which is BETTER; my job is to invest in that room, which is BETTER FOR ME as I am a decision-maker right on the moment.

Both rooms have special features. They are:

Room# 2 (equivalent to rubber-tapping):
1. It costs double than Room# 1, if I want to make it for the tenant to stay.
2. RISK factor: Tenants do not destroy anything in my room (tenants do not destroy anything because they are very good guys :)!)
3. It makes higher profit,

Room# 1(equivalent to cattle ranching):
1. It costs half of the Room# 2, if I want to make it for tenant to stay.
2. RISK factor: Sometimes, tenants destroy my television, freeze, AC and some other like this (this tenants are wicked guys :(!)
3. It makes lower profit.

Everyone wants to get high profit by investing on something; I am not regarding of that. The question is trying to give signal that I should choose one in which I can invest whole the money, which is in my pocket, in my bank account, and/or somewhere else (the total amount from these source is limited). To invest in something, at first I have to know the cost/price of that product and the volume of my fund-Is the fund enough or not? Here, I have a LIMITED fund. The fund may be worth $100,000 or $200,000, $600,000. I can't invest in those ROOMS because I still do not know how much those rooms cost. Let, Room#2 costs $200,000 and Room#1 cost $100,000. Now, I'll choose one, which is BETTER FOR ME not just better. I have a LIMITED fund. I do not know how much money in this fund. If the fund carries $200,000, then I must invest in Room# 2 to gain MORE profit. If the fund carries $100,000 then I must invest in Room#1 (here, I have to sacrifice higher profit as I do not have more money to invest in Room#2).---isn't it?
But, I still do not know the volume of the fund and cost of Room# 1 & Room# 2. So, should I take decision to invest in Room# 1 or in Room# 2?----definitely not. So, how does GMAC take decision to invest in Cattle ranching without having enough information?!?
I need to have an exact explanation why E is correct.

If my understanding is wrong, please correct me.
Thanks.


I would suggest you to analyse CR questions in as simple way as possible. The most straight-forward and probably the fastest approach to this problem is as follows:

Cattle ranching continues though rubber tapping is more profitable. Why?

The above is a comparative statement between cattle ranching and ruber tapping, and the correct explanation must state an advantage (or a positive point) of cattle ranching over ruber tapping.
Only option C and E make comparison of these two industries (so eliminate A, B and D), and between C and E, only option E states an advantage of cattle ranching over rubber tapping (eliminate C - it states a disadvantage of cattle ranching). Thus E is the correct answer.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 477
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Feb 2017, 16:08
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why Suncorp has been pursuing the less profitable of the two economic activities mentioned above?

(A) The soil of the Amazon forest is very rich in nutrients that are important in the development of grazing lands.
The rich soil may be beneficial for creating the grazzing lands but still is less profitable than rubber tapping,this choice is incorrect because it does not address the concern of the author that why is the company still going for cattle grazing rather than rubber tapping.

(B) Cattle-ranching operations that are located in tropical climates are more profitable than cattle-ranching operations that are located in cold-weather climates.
The comparison of the location of cattle ranching is irrelevant to the argument since this is internal to the cattle grazing business and does not impact the reason for why doing ranching at all rather than doing rubber tapping.

(C) In certain districts, profits made from cattle ranching are more heavily taxed than profits made from any other industry.
the choice is clearly out of scope.

(D) Some of the cattle that are raised on land cleared in the Amazon are killed by wildcats.
The information is irrelevant for our argument.

(E) The amount of money required to begin a rubber-tapping operation is twice as high as the amount needed to begin a cattle ranch.
This choice exactly addresses the reason why the firm is working on cattle ranching rather than rubber tapping as rubber tapping is twice expensive and the firm is low on funds.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Aug 2016
Posts: 51
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Sep 2017, 08:14
Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been clearing large sections of the tropical Amazon forest for cattle ranching.

This practice continues even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which does not destroy the forest, than from cattle ranching, which does destroy the forest.

We need to look for a reason that justifies why the corporation is pursuing cattle ranching even when there is a better alternative - rubber tapping. Now if one does a bit of pre-thinking, we can come up with reasons like rubber tapping business might not be easy to start - high cost, too many hassles in starting it, not the area of expertise of the corporation etc. Keeping these in mind, let us analyse the options.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why Suncorp has been pursuing the less profitable of the two economic activities mentioned above?

(A) The soil of the Amazon forest is very rich in nutrients that are important in the development of grazing lands.
[Out of Scope: This doesn't tell us why we should go for cattle ranching and not rubber tapping. ]

(B) Cattle-ranching operations that are located in tropical climates are more profitable than cattle-ranching operations that are located in cold-weather climates.
[Out of Scope again. We are looking for a comparison between cattle ranching and rubber tapping.]

(C) In certain districts, profits made from cattle ranching are more heavily taxed than profits made from any other industry.
[This acts as a weakener, if they are taxed so much, why is the corporation preferring ranching over rubber tapping?]

(D) Some of the cattle that are raised on land cleared in the Amazon are killed by wildcats.
[Way out of Scope - not interested in know if the cattle are killed or not]

(E) The amount of money required to begin a rubber-tapping operation is twice as high as the amount needed to begin a cattle ranch.
[So, we are left with this option - this option seems logical because the corporation has "limited funds" and this could very well be the reason why he cannot start a rubber tapping business.]

Thus, the correct answer is E.
_________________

Work Hard! Have Fun! Create History! :)

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Posts: 15
Re: Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Nov 2017, 04:01
Quote:
Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been clearing large sections of the tropical Amazon forest for cattle ranching. This practice continues even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which does not destroy the forest, than from cattle ranching, which does destroy the forest.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why Suncorp has been pursuing the less profitable of the two economic activities mentioned above?

(A) The soil of the Amazon forest is very rich in nutrients that are important in the development of grazing lands.

(B) Cattle-ranching operations that are located in tropical climates are more profitable than cattle-ranching operations that are located in cold-weather climates.

(C) In certain districts, profits made from cattle ranching are more heavily taxed than profits made from any other industry.

(D) Some of the cattle that are raised on land cleared in the Amazon are killed by wildcats.

(E) The amount of money required to begin a rubber-tapping operation is twice as high as the amount needed to begin a cattle ranch.



A. Not relevant.
B. So? Not relevant.
C. Weakened the conclusion.
D. Not relevant, yet weakened the conclusion.
E. Relevant. Suncorp acted like a true capitalist. :lol:
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Status: Turning my handicaps into assets
Joined: 09 Apr 2017
Posts: 125
Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 May 2018, 05:15
The key here is in the modifier- a new corporation with limited funds.
_________________

If time was on my side, I'd still have none to waste......

VP
VP
User avatar
D
Status: It's near - I can see.
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Posts: 1221
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Operations
GMAT 1: 480 Q38 V22
GPA: 3.01
WE: Engineering (Consulting)
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 May 2018, 05:23
betterscore wrote:
Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been clearing large sections of the tropical Amazon forest for cattle ranching. This practice continues even though greater profits can be made from rubber tapping, which does not destroy the forest, than from cattle ranching, which does destroy the forest.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why Suncorp has been pursuing the less profitable of the two economic activities mentioned above?


(A) The soil of the Amazon forest is very rich in nutrients that are important in the development of grazing lands.

(B) Cattle-ranching operations that are located in tropical climates are more profitable than cattle-ranching operations that are located in cold-weather climates.

(C) In certain districts, profits made from cattle ranching are more heavily taxed than profits made from any other industry.

(D) Some of the cattle that are raised on land cleared in the Amazon are killed by wildcats.

(E) The amount of money required to begin a rubber-tapping operation is twice as high as the amount needed to begin a cattle ranch.



Link : Rubber tapping is profiter than cattle ranching ----> still Suncorp is following wrenching. Why ?

A. Opposite weakner

B. Weather --Out of scope

C. Any other industry ---Out of scope --- Our scope is limited to RT & CR.

D. Out of scope.

E. Correct ---- "Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds".

_________________

"Do not watch clock; Do what it does. KEEP GOING."

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Jul 2016
Posts: 57
Re: Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Jun 2018, 09:24
One thing to remember for Profit related questions. Profit always depends on Cost. So choose the option which talks about Profit.
Revenue always depends on sales. So for revenue related questions, choose the option which mentions about sales.
This logic works most of the time.
Re: Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been &nbs [#permalink] 11 Jun 2018, 09:24

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 30 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Suncorp, a new corporation with limited funds, has been

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

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| 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®.