BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

1000 CR SET-C#4

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
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.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
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.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
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 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.

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

IMO E !
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
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 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.

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!
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
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 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.

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)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
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
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
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 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.

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
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
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.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
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.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1