The chemicals division at Company M spent 4% of its 2008 budget

Question

The chemicals division at Company M spent 4% of its 2008 budget on marketing. The consumer products division spent 35% of its 2008 budget on marketing, while the machinery division spent only 2% of its 2008 budget on marketing.
Which of the following conclusions is best justified by the data above?

A. The consumer products division spent more on marketing in 2008 than the chemicals and machinery divisions combined.
B. Consumers are more swayed by marketing than are the mostly corporate buyers of chemicals and machinery.
C. On average, all three divisions combined spent less than 35% of their 2008 budgets on marketing.
D. The company’s overall spending on marketing is between 4% and 35%.
E. The chemicals division spent 100% more on marketing in 2008 than did the machinery division.

yashikaaggarwal · Answer

Answer is C

=> The chemicals division at Company M spent 4% of its 2008 budget on marketing. 
=> The consumer products division spent 35% of its 2008 budget on marketing, 
=> The machinery division spent only 2% of its 2008 budget on marketing.

The following which concludes the data above in most logical way:

A. The consumer products division spent more on marketing in 2008 than the chemicals and machinery divisions combined. ( we have no stats available to compare the percentage expenditure by respective divisions, it is possible that the division with less percentage spent more or visa versa. Irrelevant)

B. Consumers are more swayed by marketing than are the mostly corporate buyers of chemicals and machinery. (No mentioned statement to prefer one division over other by consumers, OUT OF SCOPE)

C. On average, all three divisions combined spent less than 35% of their 2008 budgets on marketing. ( 35% is the greatest amount spend by one of the division, so the overall expenditure has to be less than 35%) (CORRECT)

D. The company’s overall spending on marketing is between 4% and 35%. ( No stats available to surely tell the expenditure lies in between 4% and 35%, there can be more department as well.) (Irrelevant)

E. The chemicals division spent 100% more on marketing in 2008 than did the machinery division. ( NO concluding statement given to believe such stats, Irrelevant)

SSM700plus · Answer

Answer is C

1. The chemicals division - spent 4% of its 2008 budget on marketing. 
2. The consumer products division - spent 35% of its 2008 budget on marketing.
3. The machinery division - spent 2% of its 2008 budget on marketing.

The following which concludes the data above in most logical way:

A. The consumer products division spent more on marketing in 2008 than the chemicals and machinery divisions combined. 
 No abolute value can be extracted based on the percentage statistics given above. IRRELEVANT
 
B. Consumers are more swayed by marketing than are the mostly corporate buyers of chemicals and machinery. 
 No information is given about consumer preference (one division over other by consumers). OUT OF SCOPE

C. On average, all three divisions combined spent less than 35% of their 2008 budgets on marketing. 
  35% is the greatest amount spent by one of the division, so the overall expenditure has to be less than 35% and so will be the average of all three. CORRECT

D. The company’s overall spending on marketing is between 4% and 35%. 
 No information is given that confirms that company has only these three divisions. There could be many more divisions. "Overall" makes this choice incorrect. DISTORTED

E. The chemicals division spent 100% more on marketing in 2008 than did the machinery division. 
 This is not given in the passage above and it can't be concluded based on limited information provided. Had they given aboluste values for both or had they stated that total budget is same for both Chemical division & Machinery division, we could have inferred this. DISTORTED

For example -

1. The chemicals division - spent 4% of its total budget of $1000 on marketing. It is actually $40.
2. The machinery division - spent 2% of its total budget of $1000on marketing . It is actually $20.

This is exactly 100% more than machinery division.

Thekingmaker · Answer

These kind of questions are pretty easy to crack once you understand that the real numbers aren't represented by the percentages and if the given percenrages are obvious pretty less than the orginial perventages as the company M divides it's entire money therefore IMO C

Vikash5912 · Answer

OPT B Is OUT OF SCOPE
OPT D Is irrelevant.
After ELIMINATE both option , easily marks correct answer

Paras96 · Answer

Let's analyze the conclusions based on the given data:

The chemicals division spent 4% of its 2008 budget on marketing.
The consumer products division spent 35% of its 2008 budget on marketing.
The machinery division spent 2% of its 2008 budget on marketing.

(A) The consumer products division spent more on marketing in 2008 than the chemicals and machinery divisions combined.
 - This conclusion is not supported by the data. We don't have the actual budget figures to determine if the consumer products division spent more than the combined budgets of the chemicals and machinery divisions.

(B) Consumers are more swayed by marketing than are the mostly corporate buyers of chemicals and machinery.
 - This conclusion cannot be directly drawn from the given information. The spending percentages on marketing do not necessarily reflect the effectiveness of marketing or consumer behavior.

(C) On average, all three divisions combined spent less than 35% of their 2008 budgets on marketing. 
 - This conclusion is supported by the data. The chemicals division spent 4%, the consumer products division spent 35%, and the machinery division spent 2%, which, when combined, is less than 35%.

(D) The company’s overall spending on marketing is between 4% and 35%.
 - This conclusion is supported by the data. The chemicals division spent 4%, and the consumer products division spent 35%, so the overall spending on marketing is between these two percentages.

(E) The chemicals division spent 100% more on marketing in 2008 than did the machinery division.
 - This conclusion is not supported by the data. The chemicals division spent 4% on marketing, while the machinery division spent 2%, which is a difference of 2 percentage points, not 100%.

So, the conclusion best justified by the data is (C): On average, all three divisions combined spent less than 35% of their 2008 budgets on marketing.

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.

The chemicals division at Company M spent 4% of its 2008 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

The chemicals division at Company M spent 4% of its 2008 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