Hy,
-> President A of the company had an average annual increase of profit by 11%. The former president had a positive rate of 7%. Obviously, Mr. A's marketing efforts caused the increase of 4%.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the above drawn conclusion?
OA: Just before the change of presidency, the former president bought another company doubling the revenue.
An increase of revenue does not similarly mean an increase in profit... that's a weak explanation, isn't it?
Linear Mode
