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

Redeem

weakens the executive’s response to the consultant

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:57 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members

weakens the executive’s response to the consultant

by himu » Tue May 14, 2013 4:36 am
Consultant: Your total revenue would increase considerably if you enrolled your employees in my weeklong training seminar that is specifically designed for your business.

Software Company Executive: Your seminars are poorly designed and a waste of money. Since 2005, the companies in my industry that have enrolled employees in your seminar have revenues that are considerably lower than those who have not enrolled employees in your seminar.

Which of the following most seriously weakens the executive's response to the consultant?

95% of the companies that enroll in the consultant's seminar report that their revenues have increased.

Most of the software companies that had high revenues prior to 2005 did not enroll in the consultant's seminar.

Overall sales of software since 2005 have increased dramatically.

The cost of developing and producing software has decreased since 2005.

The majority of software companies that sent employees to the consultant's seminar have experienced a drop in revenue since 2005.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:37 am
Thanked: 6 times

by mohit_1607 » Tue May 14, 2013 12:35 pm
IMO B

Reason:
Suppose X is a company with high revenues before 2005
Let the revenue be $100,000

Suppose Y is a company with a comparatively lower revenue than that of X before 2005
Let the revenue be $1000

Now as per the above mentioned choice, company Y should get enrolled in the seminar.
If company Y gets enrolled in the seminar, then the Company Executive's reasoning for company Y's
revenue to be lower than company X's revenue is baseless, since the relation between the revenue of the 2 companies is already known.
Polish your skills till you achieve perfection.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:57 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members

by himu » Tue May 14, 2013 8:38 pm
Bingo ! :)
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:05 pm

by sidmaru123 » Tue May 14, 2013 10:53 pm
himu wrote:Bingo ! :)
Can I get the source of this question?
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:57 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members

by himu » Tue May 14, 2013 11:00 pm
Wonderful Veritas :)
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 7:01 am
Thanked: 1 times

by zazoz » Thu May 16, 2013 12:58 am
IMO, Choice B is incorrect because the prompt is talking about industries that have enrolled employees and those which haven't. Also the executive is talking about years after 2005. So I eliminate choice B.

IMO, the correct answer is A.
What is the OA? And please provide the OA explanation.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Thu May 16, 2013 4:26 am
The Executive points out that "Since 2005, the companies in my industry that have enrolled employees in your seminar have revenues that are considerably lower than those who have not enrolled employees in your seminar."

This is a fact - we can call it an "effect." This is something that cannot be contradicted because it is a premise. So we must accept that it is true that the companies that have enrolled in the seminar do have REVENUES that are considerably lower than other companies - those that have not enrolled in the seminar.

Now the Executive concludes that the "cause" of this effect is the poor quality of the seminar. However, the executive has only given the revenues of the companies that have enrolled and that have not enrolled. He/she has not given the percentage increase in revenues after the seminar or any other comparative information.

So it just might be that the reason that the companies who enrolled in the seminar have lower revenues AFTER 2005 is that they were the smallest companies to begin with. Maybe these companies have had terrific results from the seminar, but Kia automobile does not become bigger than Toyota overnight.

Choice B points this out. What if the biggest companies BEFORE 2005 do not enroll in the seminar? Well this explains why the companies that did enroll how lower revenues AFTER 2005! This is the real cause and we do not know whether the seminar is good or not.

Now choice A is tempting, but the Executive is talking about the companies in his industry. And those may not be part of the 95% who had the increase. So choice B more directly responds to the Executive, who is speaking specifically of the software industry.

Does that help?
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1