1000 CR SET-C#4

Expert replies

devesh: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 57; Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:37 am

by devesh » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:16 am

4. Mainline Airways was bought by its employees six years ago. Three years ago, Mainline hired QualiCo Advertising Agency to handle its promotions and advertising division. Today Mainline’s profits are over 20 percent higher than they were five years ago and 10 percent higher than they were three years ago. Employee ownership and a good advertising agency have combined to make Mainline more profitable.
Which of the following best describes the weak point in the argument above?
(A) It fails to establish a causal connection between the change in ownership at Mainline Airways and the hiring of QualiCo, on the one hand, and the rise in Mainline’s profits, on the other.
(B) It presents no evidence showing that employee-owned airlines are any more profitable than other airlines.
(C) It assumes that the profits of Mainline Airways will continue to rise.
(D) It gives no exact figures for the current profits of Mainline Airways.
(E) It fails to explain how the profits of Mainline Airways are calculated.

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:16 am

jrbrown2: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 103; Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:10 pm; Location: Brooklyn, NY; Thanked: 2 times

by jrbrown2 » Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:03 am

C,D, and E are out of scope. B is too general.

The argument states two actions taken and assumes that the profits are a result of those actions. The argument doesn't provide any link between the actions and the results. Hence, A.

mmslf75: Legendary Member; Posts: 503; Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pmFollowed by: 2 members; Thanked: 31 times

by mmslf75 » Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:37 pm

devesh wrote:4. Mainline Airways was bought by its employees six years ago. Three years ago, Mainline hired QualiCo Advertising Agency to handle its promotions and advertising division. Today Mainlineï¿½s profits are over 20 percent higher than they were five years ago and 10 percent higher than they were three years ago. Employee ownership and a good advertising agency have combined to make Mainline more profitable.
Which of the following best describes the weak point in the argument above?
(A) It fails to establish a causal connection between the change in ownership at Mainline Airways and the hiring of QualiCo, on the one hand, and the rise in Mainlineï¿½s profits, on the other.
(B) It presents no evidence showing that employee-owned airlines are any more profitable than other airlines.
(C) It assumes that the profits of Mainline Airways will continue to rise.
(D) It gives no exact figures for the current profits of Mainline Airways.
(E) It fails to explain how the profits of Mainline Airways are calculated.

A cannot be the answer! Please correct me
the argument is indeed providing a CAUSAL connection.

IMO E !

yawen: Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts; Posts: 2; Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:31 am

by yawen » Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:35 pm

mmslf75 wrote:
devesh wrote:4. Mainline Airways was bought by its employees six years ago. Three years ago, Mainline hired QualiCo Advertising Agency to handle its promotions and advertising division. Today Mainlineï¿½s profits are over 20 percent higher than they were five years ago and 10 percent higher than they were three years ago. Employee ownership and a good advertising agency have combined to make Mainline more profitable.
Which of the following best describes the weak point in the argument above?
(A) It fails to establish a causal connection between the change in ownership at Mainline Airways and the hiring of QualiCo, on the one hand, and the rise in Mainlineï¿½s profits, on the other.
(B) It presents no evidence showing that employee-owned airlines are any more profitable than other airlines.
(C) It assumes that the profits of Mainline Airways will continue to rise.
(D) It gives no exact figures for the current profits of Mainline Airways.
(E) It fails to explain how the profits of Mainline Airways are calculated.

A cannot be the answer! Please correct me
the argument is indeed providing a CAUSAL connection.

Actually the argument provides a "casual connection" rather than a causal connection.
Other possible reasons should be considered and ruled out before making such an assertion.
IMO A!

rohit_gmat: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 158; Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:21 amFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 13 times

by rohit_gmat » Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:09 am

mmslf75 wrote:
devesh wrote:4. Mainline Airways was bought by its employees six years ago. Three years ago, Mainline hired QualiCo Advertising Agency to handle its promotions and advertising division. Today Mainlineï¿½s profits are over 20 percent higher than they were five years ago and 10 percent higher than they were three years ago. Employee ownership and a good advertising agency have combined to make Mainline more profitable.
Which of the following best describes the weak point in the argument above?
(A) It fails to establish a causal connection between the change in ownership at Mainline Airways and the hiring of QualiCo, on the one hand, and the rise in Mainlineï¿½s profits, on the other.
(B) It presents no evidence showing that employee-owned airlines are any more profitable than other airlines.
(C) It assumes that the profits of Mainline Airways will continue to rise.
(D) It gives no exact figures for the current profits of Mainline Airways.
(E) It fails to explain how the profits of Mainline Airways are calculated.

A cannot be the answer! Please correct me
the argument is indeed providing a CAUSAL connection.

IMO E !

i agree, i think the answer is E. there is a casual connection being established (time periods)

rohit_gmat: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 158; Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:21 amFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 13 times

by rohit_gmat » Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:09 am

Devesh, wats the OA? Please reply

mohit11: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 293; Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:08 amFollowed by: 5 members; Location: India; Thanked: 36 times; GMAT Score:730

by mohit11 » Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:13 am

devesh wrote:4. Mainline Airways was bought by its employees six years ago. Three years ago, Mainline hired QualiCo Advertising Agency to handle its promotions and advertising division. Today Mainlineï¿½s profits are over 20 percent higher than they were five years ago and 10 percent higher than they were three years ago. Employee ownership and a good advertising agency have combined to make Mainline more profitable.
Which of the following best describes the weak point in the argument above?
(A) It fails to establish a causal connection between the change in ownership at Mainline Airways and the hiring of QualiCo, on the one hand, and the rise in Mainlineï¿½s profits, on the other.
(B) It presents no evidence showing that employee-owned airlines are any more profitable than other airlines.
(C) It assumes that the profits of Mainline Airways will continue to rise.
(D) It gives no exact figures for the current profits of Mainline Airways.
(E) It fails to explain how the profits of Mainline Airways are calculated.

A is the only credible answer. here's why

A - We do need to know how 2 things lead to the conclusion. Time period is just that a time phrase it does not establish a causal connection. We need some thing such as... "employee productivity increased after employee take over and better advertising led to more clients thus company's profits increased ...blah blah"
B - We are not concerned about other airlines, out of scope
C - We are not concerned with what will happen to the profits in the future. The stimulus never talks about the future
D - Who wants the exact figures anyway, I prefer percentages over figures anyday
E - How profits are calculated is again out of scope. Stimulus does not talk about method of calculation of profits. Whatever method they are using, if the company is profitable now (as opposed what the company's profits were 6 years ago) then its fine.

Founder of Consulting Network: https://consultingnetwork.co.in - A portal for consultants

Facebook Page for Consulting Network: https://www.facebook.com/globalconsultingnetwork

My Blog: https://outspoken-mind.blocked

730 Debrief: https://www.beatthegmat.com/730-q49-v41- ... 80010.html

paes: Legendary Member; Posts: 995; Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pmFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 31 times

by paes » Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:11 pm

A should be the answer.

This is a classical problem.
The increase in the profit can be because of many other reasons.
So, a incidence is treated like a causal relation.

e.g.

Whenever you come in white shirt, you get a discount from the store manager.
So it means that the store manager likes the white shirt.

vishalj: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 104; Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:03 pm; Thanked: 4 times

by vishalj » Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:52 pm

Cause and effect question. IMO A

Per question,
Causes -> Effect

Employee Ownership ( 5yrs ago) + Ad Agency (3 yrs) -> Profitable

A strong cause and effect relationship is unbroken by any other cause or present a different effect for the same cause. To prove that there is no strong bond existed between the cause and effect, we can take the below examples. This can also be a good weakening question.

1. Different reason for the cause - Eg.As mentioned above, the employee productivity increased, which contributed to profit.
2. Weakening the cause(s) - Eg. Even after the employee ownership, nothing has been changed. Same higher management, same employee. And the data showed that employing new ad agency doesn't contribute to profits.
3. Weakening the effect - eg Previous year, the company net loss was 90%. So this year profit is still a loss.
4. Statistical data to undermine cause/effect - eg. THere is enough evidence that when a company is owned by employees, it shows profits in 5-6 years but after that the company starts losing its market share and declare bankruptacy. or waht ever.

GMAT Course Reviews

563 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (563 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review