ExpertsGlobal5
As part of an endorsement deal, a shoe company pays an athlete a fixed yearly licensing fee and 1 percent of annual turnover above $10 million on the shoes he endorses. If the licensing fee was consistent across 2005 and 2006, how much higher was the revenue on the shoes in 2005 than in 2006?
(1) The total amount the company paid to the athlete was $460,000 in 2005 and $420,000 in 2006.
(2) The fixed licensing fee paid to the athlete each year was $400,000.
Explanation: Let the fixed yearly licensing fee be L.
Let the annual turnover in the year 2005 and year 2006 be A1 and A2, respectively.
If A1 ≤ $10 million, then the total amount paid to the athlete in the year 2005 = L
If A1 > $10 million, then the total amount paid to the athlete in the year 2005 = L + 0.01(A1 – 10,000,000) (Equation I)
If A2 ≤ $10 million, then the total amount paid to the athlete in the year 2006 = L
If A2 > $10 million, then the total amount paid to the athlete in the year 2006 = L + 0.01(A2 – 10,000,000) (Equation II)
Difference between the revenue on the shoes in 2005 and in 2006 = A1 – A2
We need to find whether the value of (A1 – A2) can be determined. Statement (1) The total amount paid to the athlete in 2005 = $460,000 (Equation III)
The total amount paid to the athlete in 2006 = $420,000 (Equation IV)
If A2 ≤ $10 million, then L = 420,000, and then since the total amount paid to the athlete in 2005 was greater than L, it follows that A1 ≥ $10 million.
After that, using Equations I and III we can determine the value of A1, however
, it is not possible to calculate the value of A2. Since
no information is provided that suggests that A2 > $10 million, it is NOT possible to determine the value of (A1 – A2).
Hence, Statement (1) is insufficient. Statement (2) L = 400,000 (Equation V)
Since
no information is provided regarding the total amount paid to the athlete, it is NOT possible to determine the value of (A1 – A2).
Hence, Statement (2) is insufficient. As Statement (1) alone as well as Statement (2) alone is insufficient to answer the question, we need to now combine the two statements.
Statement (1) and Statement (2) combined From Equation V, we know that L = 400,000, and since
Equation III and Equation IV show that the total amount paid to the athlete is greater than L for both years, it follows that
A1 > $10 million and A2 > $10 million. From Equations I and III: L + 0.01(A1 – 10,000,000) = $460,000 (Equation VI)
From Equations II and IV: L + 0.01(A2 – 10,000,000) = $420,000 (Equation VII)
From Equations V, VI, and VII we have 3 equations with 3 unknown variables that can be solved to determine the value of A1 and A2, which in turn can be used to determine the value of A1 – A2.
Hence, Statement (1) and Statement (2) combined are sufficient. C is the correct answer choice.