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

Redeem

Tough CR from Knewton

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:47 am
Thanked: 6 times

Tough CR from Knewton

by need720+ » Mon Aug 08, 2011 6:14 am
Revenues earned by patent attorneys have increased dramatically during the last two years. To take advantage of this trend, the law firm of Smith & Adams plans to increase the size of its patent law department, while continuing its established program of marketing to inventors seeking patents.

Which of the following, if true, provides the most support for the contention that it would be unwise for Smith & Adams to pursue the plan described above?

(A)Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked a greater number of hours last year than they did two years ago.
(B)The revenue collected by Smith & Adams' patent law department increased by a greater proportion than the industry average over the last two years.
(C)Most inventors who hire Smith & Adams' patent attorneys do so without knowing that these attorneys work at Smith & Adams.
(D)Despite decreasing their fee rates, Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked fewer hours and earned less revenue over the last two years than in previous years.
(E)Despite the increasing fees collected by its patent attorneys, Smith & Adams' share of the entire patent law market declined over the past two years.

OA after some discussion. Please provide explanations.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:40 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:700

by sunnyjohn » Mon Aug 08, 2011 6:32 am
[spoiler]IMO: D[/spoiler]

If I am correct, I will provide my reasoning.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Chennai, India
Thanked: 206 times
Followed by:43 members
GMAT Score:640

by GmatKiss » Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:42 am
Mixed with B and E.

will go for B
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:09 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

by Deepthi Subbu » Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:47 am
I go with E . Whats the OA ?
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:25 am
between C and D
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:31 am

by vamsigmat2012 » Mon Aug 08, 2011 6:02 pm
Is it E?
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:47 am
Thanked: 6 times

by need720+ » Mon Aug 08, 2011 9:25 pm
sunnyjohn wrote:[spoiler]IMO: D[/spoiler]

If I am correct, I will provide my reasoning.
OA is D

Sunny- Please provide explanation to eliminate each incorrect option.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:34 am
Thanked: 38 times
Followed by:1 members

by sl750 » Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:05 am
We are looking for a choice that would discourage the firm from pursuing its expansion plan

A - This does not tell us whether it was because they were flooded with clients or was it because of the complexity of patents itself that consumed the attorney's time
B - Does not support the contention that it would be unwise for them to go ahead with their plan. On the contrary it would encourage them to carry out their plan
C - Would suggest that there is something wrong with their marketing plan, nevertheless as long as the inventors are coming to them to get their patents filed that would bring the firm business
E- The lost market share could be due to other reasons, and it is not a reason to not go ahead with the expansion plan

D - Shows that despite lowering their fees, they didn't attract enough clients, as suggested by the fewer number of hours worked. So, if they went ahead with their expansion plan, it could prove futile
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:40 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:700

by sunnyjohn » Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:54 am
need720+ wrote:
sunnyjohn wrote:[spoiler]IMO: D[/spoiler]

If I am correct, I will provide my reasoning.
OA is D

Sunny- Please provide explanation to eliminate each incorrect option.
Here you go-

Revenues earned by patent attorneys have increased dramatically during the last two years. To take advantage of this trend, the law firm of Smith & Adams plans to increase the size of its patent law department, while continuing its established program of marketing to inventors seeking patents.

F1: Total $ earned by patent attorneys have increased in last 2 years.

PLAN: 1) Smith and Adams will hire more employee.
2) Smith and Adams will continue its advertisement program to people seeking patents.
Expected Result: This will help firm to earn more.

Argument style - Cause and Effect.
Hiring more employee, and marketing --> Earn More.

A very important assumption here is - Current level of employee can not help firm to earn more.

Our purpose: Weaken the expansion plan.

(A)Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked a greater number of hours last year than they did two years ago.
This Option is just comparing the number of hours they worked at 2 points of time. This fact doesn't help to weaken. In fact this fact strengthen the argument by supporting the assumption.

(B)The revenue collected by Smith & Adams' patent law department increased by a greater proportion than the industry average over the last two years.

This point also helps to strengthen the argument by saying that firm share in market is increasing, so may be they should hire more to get more share in market. A low level strengthening.

(C)Most inventors who hire Smith & Adams' patent attorneys do so without knowing that these attorneys work at Smith & Adams.

This fact is irrelevant to plan we want to attack, however it does weaken the point whether firm discontinue the marketing program. This option is trap because it attacks something else than main point.

(D)Despite decreasing their fee rates, Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked fewer hours and earned less revenue over the last two years than in previous years.
This says that even though firm decreased its service rate, still employee did not have full time work. It attacked our assumption and says that current employee can help to increase revenue, firm doesn't need to hire more.

(E)Despite the increasing fees collected by its patent attorneys, Smith & Adams' share of the entire patent law market declined over the past two years
This strengthen the fact that firm should continue its marketing program as its total market share is decreasing.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:19 am
Thanked: 25 times
Followed by:7 members

by Ozlemg » Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:27 am
sunnyjohn wrote:
need720+ wrote:
sunnyjohn wrote:[spoiler]IMO: D[/spoiler]

If I am correct, I will provide my reasoning.
OA is D

Sunny- Please provide explanation to eliminate each incorrect option.
Here you go-

Revenues earned by patent attorneys have increased dramatically during the last two years. To take advantage of this trend, the law firm of Smith & Adams plans to increase the size of its patent law department, while continuing its established program of marketing to inventors seeking patents.

F1: Total $ earned by patent attorneys have increased in last 2 years.

PLAN: 1) Smith and Adams will hire more employee.
2) Smith and Adams will continue its advertisement program to people seeking patents.
Expected Result: This will help firm to earn more.

Argument style - Cause and Effect.
Hiring more employee, and marketing --> Earn More.

A very important assumption here is - Current level of employee can not help firm to earn more.

Our purpose: Weaken the expansion plan.

(A)Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked a greater number of hours last year than they did two years ago.
This Option is just comparing the number of hours they worked at 2 points of time. This fact doesn't help to weaken. In fact this fact strengthen the argument by supporting the assumption.

(B)The revenue collected by Smith & Adams' patent law department increased by a greater proportion than the industry average over the last two years.

This point also helps to strengthen the argument by saying that firm share in market is increasing, so may be they should hire more to get more share in market. A low level strengthening.

(C)Most inventors who hire Smith & Adams' patent attorneys do so without knowing that these attorneys work at Smith & Adams.

This fact is irrelevant to plan we want to attack, however it does weaken the point whether firm discontinue the marketing program. This option is trap because it attacks something else than main point.

(D)Despite decreasing their fee rates, Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked fewer hours and earned less revenue over the last two years than in previous years.
This says that even though firm decreased its service rate, still employee did not have full time work. It attacked our assumption and says that current employee can help to increase revenue, firm doesn't need to hire more.

(E)Despite the increasing fees collected by its patent attorneys, Smith & Adams' share of the entire patent law market declined over the past two years
This strengthen the fact that firm should continue its marketing program as its total market share is decreasing.
I completely agree with sunnyjohn and want to add one more thing.

D)Despite decreasing their fee rates, Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked fewer hours and earned less revenue over the last two years than in previous years.--> D clearly shows that the plan will not work; because even if the firm lowers its fee rates, the revenue generated is still low. They can not attract new people with low rates, so expanding the depoartment will not work either.
The more you suffer before the test, the less you will do so in the test! :)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:49 am
Location: Delhi
Thanked: 6 times

by ranjeet75 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:30 pm
Very good question
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:07 am
Thanked: 19 times
Followed by:3 members

by GmatVerbal » Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:15 pm
Good question. This question is similar to the OG question -- Telephone companies revenues have increased and company X tried to improve.."; I don't remember question number though.

Argument:

Revenues of patent attornies increasing for the last two years ===(1)===> Adams & Smith plan to hires attornies to raise revenues;

Argument gap: why should it help increase the revenues? because Adams & smith current employees can't take more work than currently they are.

Weaken: Current employees don't have enough work.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
Location: Vietnam
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:5 members

by tuanquang269 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:41 am
sunnyjohn wrote:
need720+ wrote:
sunnyjohn wrote:[spoiler]IMO: D[/spoiler]

If I am correct, I will provide my reasoning.
OA is D

Sunny- Please provide explanation to eliminate each incorrect option.
Here you go-

Revenues earned by patent attorneys have increased dramatically during the last two years. To take advantage of this trend, the law firm of Smith & Adams plans to increase the size of its patent law department, while continuing its established program of marketing to inventors seeking patents.

F1: Total $ earned by patent attorneys have increased in last 2 years.

PLAN: 1) Smith and Adams will hire more employee.
2) Smith and Adams will continue its advertisement program to people seeking patents.
Expected Result: This will help firm to earn more.

Argument style - Cause and Effect.
Hiring more employee, and marketing --> Earn More.

A very important assumption here is - Current level of employee can not help firm to earn more.

Our purpose: Weaken the expansion plan.

(A)Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked a greater number of hours last year than they did two years ago.
This Option is just comparing the number of hours they worked at 2 points of time. This fact doesn't help to weaken. In fact this fact strengthen the argument by supporting the assumption.

(B)The revenue collected by Smith & Adams' patent law department increased by a greater proportion than the industry average over the last two years.

This point also helps to strengthen the argument by saying that firm share in market is increasing, so may be they should hire more to get more share in market. A low level strengthening.

(C)Most inventors who hire Smith & Adams' patent attorneys do so without knowing that these attorneys work at Smith & Adams.

This fact is irrelevant to plan we want to attack, however it does weaken the point whether firm discontinue the marketing program. This option is trap because it attacks something else than main point.

(D)Despite decreasing their fee rates, Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked fewer hours and earned less revenue over the last two years than in previous years.
This says that even though firm decreased its service rate, still employee did not have full time work. It attacked our assumption and says that current employee can help to increase revenue, firm doesn't need to hire more.

(E)Despite the increasing fees collected by its patent attorneys, Smith & Adams' share of the entire patent law market declined over the past two years
This strengthen the fact that firm should continue its marketing program as its total market share is decreasing.
Nice explanation. Thanks.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1