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

Question

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.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

When drawing a conclusion, we must remember not to conclude too much; i.e., do not make unwarranted assumptions. In this case, we are looking for the conclusion that must be true based only on the information given in the passage without requiring any additional assumptions.

(A) While we are given information about the percentage of the total budgets spent on marketing, we have no information about the actual amount of money either company spent on marketing.

(B) While we are given information about the percentage of the total budgets spent on production, we have no information about the actual amount of money either company spent on production.

(C) Because we have no information on the sale price per copy for either company, we cannot make any conclusions about the revenue generated by either company. It’s very possible that Making Hits sold its copies at twice the price of the Song Factory copies, in which case the revenues for the two companies would be the same.

(D) CORRECT.  Since Making Hits spent 40% of its budget on production, 30% on marketing, and the rest on overhead, we can conclude that Making Hits spent 30% of its budget on overhead. Since the Song Factory spent 20% of its budget on production and 60% on marketing, and met its budget, it could not have spent more than 20% on overhead. Therefore, Making Hits spent a higher percentage of its budget on overhead than did the Song Factory.

(E) A valid conclusion must be true. While it is possible, and perhaps even likely, that the percentage of the budget spent on marketing was a driver of sales, this is not necessarily true; there are many other factors that could have affected sales. For example, it is possible that the Song Factory sold more copies of its 10 albums because the music was better than the music produced at Making Hits, and not because the Song Factory spent a higher percentage on marketing.

VeritasPrepMimi · Answer

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.

tkarthi4u · Answer

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.

Economist · Answer

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.

siddharthmuzumdar · Answer

This one is a direct D. Arrange the costs as follows:

Name Of Company-------------Production Costs-----Marketing Costs-----Overhead Costs-----Number of Copies Sold

Making Hits Record Company----40-------------------------30----------------------30----------------------800,000
Song Factory Record Company---20-------------------------60----------------------20----------------------1,600,000

All the costs are expressed in percentage (%).

Thus, according to the overhead costs for each of the companies, we can see that  Making Hits spent a larger percentage of its budget on overhead costs than did the Song Factory.  That is exactly what D says. Simple arithmetic and data arrangement help us solve this problem quickly too.

rait_m · Answer

How can we assume that the cost grouping of the 2 companies are the same, i.e. that Song Factory Company spent 20% of its budget on overhead costs? It is nowhere said so and one has to assume it. For example, it could easily be that Song F.C spent 10% of its budget on overhead and another 10% on sales agents that the other company didn´t have.

rohitgoel15 · Answer

But why are we assuming that the Total budget of Making Hits = Total budget of Song factory? eg. Total budget of Making Hits = 100 , 30% of 100 --> 30 Total budget of Song factory= 200 , 20% of 200 --> 40 Then how come D is the ans? :cry:

nikhilsamuel89 · Answer

Let X and Y be the budgets of MHRC and SFRC respectively.
MHRCo. spent 40% of X ----- production of ten albums
 30% of X ----- marketing 
 20% of X ----- Overhead costs
 Sold 800,000 copies

SFRCo. spent 20% of Y ----- production of 10 albums
 60% of Y ----- marketing 
 80% of Y ----- Overhead Costs 
 Sold 1,600,000 copies

Assuming each company met its budget, which of the following  conclusions  is best supported by the information given above?  Hence, we should not assume anything other than what is mentioned in the stimulus.
 
(A) The amount of money spent on marketing is directly related to the number of copies sold.   We don't know X, Y. So we can't say anything about the amount of money spent.  
(B) Making Hits spent more money on the production of its albums in 2003 than did the Song Factory.  Same argument here too. We don't know X and Y. 
(C) Song Factory’s total revenue from the sale of albums produced in 2003 was higher than that of Making Hits.  We don't know what the selling prices were, so we cannot conclude anything from this statement. 
(D) In 2003, Making Hits spent a larger percentage of its budget on overhead costs than did the Song Factory. We know that   MHRC spent 30% of X on OC and that SFRC spent 20% of Y on OC.   True!
(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.  Again, we don't know X and Y

sahilkkp · Answer

Hi,
In any case, Making Hits spent 30% of its budget on Overhead costs..

Song Factory's Production + Marketing = 80%
Even if there are more divisions in the company OverHead costs will be less than 30% only..

I hove this clarifies..

Regards
Sahil

AccipiterQ · Answer

This question REALLY bothers me. You don't know if the company had some other expense that it was spending on, so you can't say it all went to overhead. D is a pretty weak OA if you ask me.

vad3tha · Answer

I will go for D. You know for sure that Making Hits spent 30% of its total budget on overhead. For Songs Factory, since it's already used 80% on marketing and production, the rest is 20%. So the maximum amount can be spent on overhead is 20% ( it could be less than that if, as you said, the company had some other expense). Then you still can conclude that Making Hits spent larger percentage on overhead.

lakshya14 · Answer

No mention of overhead cost with the second company?

AndrewN · Answer

Although that is true,  lakshya14 , notice that we can compare  percentages  of each company's budget. We know from the first sentence of the passage that Making Hits Record Company followed a split of 40/30/30 for production, marketing, and overhead, respectively; we know from the second sentence that the Song Factory Record Company (hereafter SFRC) followed a split of 20/60 for production and marketing, respectively. This leaves only 20 percent for other expenditures within the budget of SFRC, and since 30 > no more than 20, we can conclude that (D) is correct.

Notice that answer choices (A) through (C) are all based on actual figures—i.e. the total amount of money, or the total revenue generated—but we have no information on the actual budgets or revenues of either record company, so we cannot get behind such comparisons.

I hope that helps clarify the matter. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Karan0912 · Answer

Option D is the winner here.
Other options require assumption on reasons, amount etc.

DrHuber · Answer

A) The information does not directly state that the amount of money spent on marketing is directly related to the number of copies sold. While it is mentioned that both companies spent different percentages of their budgets on marketing, it does not provide conclusive evidence to establish a direct relationship between the amount spent on marketing and the number of copies sold. Therefore, this conclusion is not supported by the information given.
(B) The information does not provide direct information about the specific amounts spent on production by either company. It only mentions the percentages of their budgets allocated to production. Without further information about the total budgets of the two companies, we cannot compare the actual amounts spent on production. Therefore, this conclusion is not supported by the information given.
(C) The information does not provide data on the revenue generated by each company from the sale of their albums. It only provides information on the number of copies sold by each company. Without knowing the price of the albums or the revenue generated per copy sold, we cannot determine which company had higher total revenue. Therefore, this conclusion is not supported by the information given.
(D) The information states that Making Hits spent 40% of its budget on the production of albums, 30% on marketing, and the remainder on overhead costs. The Song Factory spent 20% on production, 60% on marketing, and the remainder on overhead costs. Therefore, Making Hits spent a higher percentage of its budget on overhead than Song Factory.
(E) The information states that Making Hits sold a total of 800,000 copies of its albums, while the Song Factory sold a total of 1,600,000 copies. It is mentioned that the Song Factory spent 60% of its budget on marketing, while Making Hits spent 30% on marketing. This suggests that the Song Factory's higher investment in marketing may have contributed to its higher number of album sales. Therefore, the conclusion that "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" is not supported by the information given.
Based on the given information, the best-supported conclusion is (D).

Engineer1 · Answer

Hi  Bunuel ,  bb  - FYI, the source is not OG but  mgmat . I just took an MGMAT adaptive test today and got this exact question.

Bunuel · Answer

______________________________
Edited the tag. Thank you very much!

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

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

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

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

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