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.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
1000 CR SET-C#4
This topic has expert replies
-
jrbrown2
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:10 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
- Thanked: 2 times
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.
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 pm
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:2 members
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 !
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!
-
rohit_gmat
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:21 am
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:1 members
i agree, i think the answer is E. there is a casual connection being established (time periods)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 !
-
rohit_gmat
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:21 am
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:1 members
-
mohit11
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 293
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:08 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 36 times
- Followed by:5 members
- GMAT Score:730
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
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 pm
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:1 members
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.
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.
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.
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.
