Chemical Division

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:21 am
Thanked: 1 times

Chemical Division

by gmattester » Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:02 pm
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemical division, which has traditionally contributed about 60 percent of the corporation’s profits. It is therefore encouraging that there is the following evidence that the pharmaceutical division is growing stronger: it contributed 45 percent of the corporation’s profits, up from 20 percent the previous year.
On the basis of the facts stated, which of the following is the best critique of the evidence presented above?
(A) The increase in the pharmaceutical division’s contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of single, important new product.
(B) In multidivisional corporations that have pharmaceutical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from the pharmaceuticals.
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the pharmaceutical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved.
(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 20 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before.
(E) The information cited does not make it possible to compare the performance of the chemical and pharmaceutical divisions in of the percent of total profits attributable to each.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:33 pm
D or E..


IMO:E

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:09 am
Location: India
Thanked: 6 times

Re: Chemical Division

by kiranlegend » Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:27 am
gmattester wrote:Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for our chemical division, which has traditionally contributed about 60 percent of the corporation’s profits. It is therefore encouraging that there is the following evidence that the pharmaceutical division is growing stronger: it contributed 45 percent of the corporation’s profits, up from 20 percent the previous year.
On the basis of the facts stated, which of the following is the best critique of the evidence presented above?
(A) The increase in the pharmaceutical division’s contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of single, important new product. -- no where we are concerned about single,improtant product
B) In multidivisional corporations that have pharmaceutical divisions, over half of the corporation’s profits usually come from the pharmaceuticals. -- corporations.. nah.. this can't be the judgement
(C) The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the pharmaceutical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved.
(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 20 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before.
(E) The information cited does not make it possible to compare the performance of the chemical and pharmaceutical divisions in of the percent of total profits attributable to each.
C, D , and E are contenders.

C is my pick.. we are here to judge It is therefore encouraging that there is the following evidence that the pharmaceutical division is growing stronger . It merely talks about pharmaceutical division.

so C talks about pharmaceutical division.

D and E are traps -- D talks about 20% profits of last year.. E talks about comparing the two divisions mentioned in the stimulus.. but we want to find out whether pharmaceutical division is gorwing stronger.. hence chuck this one too:)

Please correct me if am wrong

what is the OA?

Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:39 am
kranlegend...


I think u r correct.. there is no need in comparison of numbers as both division can be independently profitable...


one more vote for C/..":)


thanks.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:33 pm
Thanked: 5 times

by Vignesh.4384 » Thu Aug 14, 2008 3:52 am
raunekk wrote:kranlegend...


I think u r correct.. there is no need in comparison of numbers as both division can be independently profitable...


one more vote for C/..":)


thanks.
@ kiranlegend , raunekk

Assume a company that has 2 divisions
1) Chemical
2) Pharma

Lets just assume the proif both companes make together until now = 1000$

Until now Lets say Chemical reaps a profit of 75%(7500$) every year and Pharma does only 25%(2500$) annually.

The following year say the chemical companies profit falls by 50% so
chemicals division profit = 3500$
and and pharma's frofit remains the same
pharmas profit = 2500$

now the % of profit that the pharma would have made is = 41% approx.

This is exactly what option C is trying to say . From the above eg u can see that the pharma profits remains the same but the % it contributes to the total varies as a result of change in chemical divisions profit.

This indirectly says that pharmas division did not become become any stronger than it was.


Do u ppl agree to this explanation ??

Regards,
Vignesh

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:09 am
Location: India
Thanked: 6 times

by kiranlegend » Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:18 am
Vignesh.4384 wrote:
raunekk wrote:kranlegend...


I think u r correct.. there is no need in comparison of numbers as both division can be independently profitable...


one more vote for C/..":)


thanks.
@ kiranlegend , raunekk

Assume a company that has 2 divisions
1) Chemical
2) Pharma

Lets just assume the proif both companes make together until now = 1000$

Until now Lets say Chemical reaps a profit of 75%(7500$) every year and Pharma does only 25%(2500$) annually.

The following year say the chemical companies profit falls by 50% so
chemicals division profit = 3500$
and and pharma's frofit remains the same
pharmas profit = 2500$

now the % of profit that the pharma would have made is = 41% approx.

This is exactly what option C is trying to say . From the above eg u can see that the pharma profits remains the same but the % it contributes to the total varies as a result of change in chemical divisions profit.

This indirectly says that pharmas division did not become become any stronger than it was.


Do u ppl agree to this explanation ??

Regards,
Vignesh
yup, that is the way even I did this :)

Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:26 am
@Vignesh.4384

thanks..tat made things quite clear!!!:)

but d problem is how to avoid traps like D and E.. in such a short time span,,,???

but thanks a lot ,...tat was an excellent explanation!!!

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:21 am
Thanked: 1 times

by gmattester » Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:37 am
Vignesh.4384 wrote:
raunekk wrote:kranlegend...


I think u r correct.. there is no need in comparison of numbers as both division can be independently profitable...


one more vote for C/..":)


thanks.
@ kiranlegend , raunekk

Assume a company that has 2 divisions
1) Chemical
2) Pharma

Lets just assume the proif both companes make together until now = 1000$

Until now Lets say Chemical reaps a profit of 75%(7500$) every year and Pharma does only 25%(2500$) annually.

The following year say the chemical companies profit falls by 50% so
chemicals division profit = 3500$
and and pharma's frofit remains the same
pharmas profit = 2500$

now the % of profit that the pharma would have made is = 41% approx.

This is exactly what option C is trying to say . From the above eg u can see that the pharma profits remains the same but the % it contributes to the total varies as a result of change in chemical divisions profit.

This indirectly says that pharmas division did not become become any stronger than it was.


Do u ppl agree to this explanation ??

Regards,
Vignesh
Thanks, That was an excellent explanation.
OA is "C"

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:28 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by arorag » Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:07 pm
I have one problem with C
The percentage of the corporation’s profits attributable to the pharmaceutical division could have increased even if that division’s performance had not improved. -----They are talking about which divsion C or P

How abt A--- This gives reson on P's sucess irrespective of C

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:33 pm
Thanked: 5 times

by Vignesh.4384 » Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:40 pm
arorag,

We are asked to weaken the evidence.
A actually sopports it.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:28 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by arorag » Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:14 pm
Got it, I was confuse... I think it's time to sleep :)

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:16 pm

by agent47 » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:50 pm
IMO C

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:21 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by NSNguyen » Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:19 am
IMO: E
Please share your idea and your reasoning :D
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:55 am

by john83.amar » Wed May 11, 2016 12:32 pm
I believe the answer should be C