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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Struggling to find the right strategies to score a 99 %ile on GMAT Focus? Riya (GMAT 715) boosted her score by 100-points in just 15 days! Discover how the right mentorship, tailored strategies, and an unwavering mindset can transform your GMAT prep.
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 25 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Scoring 329 on the GRE is not always about using more books, more courses, or a longer study plan. In this episode of GRE Success Talks, Ashutosh shares his GRE preparation strategy, study plan, and test-day experience, explaining how he kept his prep....
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
62%
(02:33)
correct 38%
(02:25)
wrong
based on 29
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In the United States financing of marketing research by private firms remained steady as a percentage of sales during the period between 1968 and 1978 (after correcting for inflation). But slowdowns in the growth of marketing productivity also occurred during that period, a fact that refutes the notion that the growth of marketing productivity is directly proportional to the amount invested in marketing research.
Which of the following, if true for the United States, most weakens the argument above?
(A) Federal funds, which constituted a significant portion of the support for marketing research from 1968 to 1978, fell annually and substantially during that period. (B) The inflation that occurred between 1968 and 1978, was more severe than leading economists had expected. (C) Marketing executives generally favor investing an appreciably larger portion of corporate funds in short-term product development than in basic research. (D) The advertisers who worked in marketing from 1968 to 1978 were, as a group more, experienced in their jobs than were those who worked in the marketing industry during the previous ten-year period (E) Corporate financing of marketing research increased, in several of the years immediately following 1978 (after correcting for inflation).
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
In the United States financing of marketing research by private firms remained steady as a percentage of sales during the period between 1968 and 1978 (after correcting for inflation). But slowdowns in the growth of marketing productivity also occurred during that period, a fact that refutes the notion that the growth of marketing productivity is directly proportional to the amount invested in marketing research.
Which of the following, if true for the United States, most weakens the argument above?
(A) Federal funds, which constituted a significant portion of the support for marketing research from 1968 to 1978, fell annually and substantially during that period. (B) The inflation that occurred between 1968 and 1978, was more severe than leading economists had expected. (C) Marketing executives generally favor investing an appreciably larger portion of corporate funds in short-term product development than in basic research. (D) The advertisers who worked in marketing from 1968 to 1978 were, as a group more, experienced in their jobs than were those who worked in the marketing industry during the previous ten-year period (E) Corporate financing of marketing research increased, in several of the years immediately following 1978 (after correcting for inflation).
Show more
This is an example of a causal argument. Premise-The investment in market research has been steady by the private firms during a perticular period still the market productivity has gone down in that preriod. Author's Conclusion - The notion that the investment in market reasearch in proportional to the market productivity did not hold true for that period.
Here, we need to bring in one more cause which can support the dilution in market productivity so that the conclusion can not stand valid. The first choice introduces a new cause that shortened the funds invested into market research keeping the investments from private firms steady and hence the notion that martket research is a direct function of investment holds true (because the total funds invested into market research are lesser so the diminising market productivity is expected accroding to the notion that productivity is proportional to investment in research => that notion still holds true contary to the author's conclusion). And at the same time, the autor's conclustion is undermined. Hence the correct answer is (A)
In the United States financing of marketing research by private firms remained steady as a percentage of sales during the period between 1968 and 1978 (after correcting for inflation). But slowdowns in the growth of marketing productivity also occurred during that period, a fact that refutes the notion that the growth of marketing productivity is directly proportional to the amount invested in marketing research.
Which of the following, if true for the United States, most weakens the argument above?
(A) Federal funds, which constituted a significant portion of the support for marketing research from 1968 to 1978, fell annually and substantially during that period. (B) The inflation that occurred between 1968 and 1978, was more severe than leading economists had expected. (C) Marketing executives generally favor investing an appreciably larger portion of corporate funds in short-term product development than in basic research. (D) The advertisers who worked in marketing from 1968 to 1978 were, as a group more, experienced in their jobs than were those who worked in the marketing industry during the previous ten-year period (E) Corporate financing of marketing research increased, in several of the years immediately following 1978 (after correcting for inflation).
This is an example of a causal argument. Premise-The investment in market research has been steady by the private firms during a perticular period still the market productivity has gone down in that preriod. Author's Conclusion - The notion that the investment in market reasearch in proportional to the market productivity did not hold true for that period.
Here, we need to bring in one more cause which can support the dilution in market productivity so that the conclusion can not stand valid. The first choice introduces a new cause that shortened the funds invested into market research keeping the investments from private firms steady and hence the notion that martket research is a direct function of investment holds true (because the total funds invested into market research are lesser so the diminising market productivity is expected accroding to the notion that productivity is proportional to investment in research => that notion still holds true contary to the author's conclusion). And at the same time, the autor's conclustion is undermined. Hence the correct answer is (A)
Show more
good explanation ! ..I have highlighted the most important word in the first sentence ...PRIVATE investment ... but productivity is PRIVATE plus FEDERAL ......
(A) Federal funds, which constituted a significant portion of the support for marketing research from 1968 to 1978, fell annually and substantially during that period option a A clearly explains the reason of low marketing productivity .....
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.