|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 21
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore, [#permalink]
 09 Jan 2005, 05:52
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore, Inc., must increase productivity, 10 percent over the course of the next two years, or it will certainly go bankrupt. In fact, however, Quore's production structure is such that if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following must on the basis of them also be true?
(A) It is only Quore's production structure that makes it possible fro Quore to survive the transformation of the market.
(B) Quore will not go bankrupt if it achieves a productivity increase of 20 percent over the next two years.
(C) If the market had not been transformed, Quore would have required no productivity increase in order to avoid bankruptcy.
(D) Because of the transformation of the market Quore will achieve a productivity increase of 10 percent over the next two years.
(E) If a 20 percent productivity increase is unattainable for Quore, then it must go bankrupt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 66
Location: Find me if you can
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Vote for B
_________________
Wish you all good luck
Bhimsen Joshi
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1544
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
"E" for me. Will explain if correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 894
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 0
|
(B) for me.
Quore will not go bankrupt if it achieves a productivity increase of 20 percent over the next two years.
As stated from the premises:
10 percent over the course of the next two years, or it will certainly go bankrupt
Just a form of logic like this
A -> B
NOT B -> NOT A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 72
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Will go for E
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
I will go with 'C'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 232
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
my choice is C. Market changes lead to the need to increase.
even with a 20% inc. the firm can still go bankrupt. the passage did not mention whether a 10% inc will guarantee no bankruptcy.
This one is tricky
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1544
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
OA please ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 21
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Sorry for the delayed post.
The OA is E.
Can someone explain how?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 894
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 0
|
HSWKM wrote: Sorry for the delayed post.
The OA is E.
Can someone explain how?
OK, I got it now after a second though.
According to the stems:
Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore, Inc., must increase productivity, 10 percent over the course of the next two years, or it will certainly go bankrupt. In fact, however, Quore's production structure is such that if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable.
Let
A = 10% increase
B = bankrupt
C = 20% increase
We have
A <-> ~B (A if and only B)
A -> C
According to (E)
(E) If a 20 percent productivity increase is unattainable for Quore, then it must go bankrupt.
Rewrite it as: ~C -> B
Yes, since
~C -> ~A
=> ~A -> B
=> ~C -> B
The "key" is that "10% increase will make it not go bankrupt, if not, it will go bankrupt".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 74
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
qhc001000
I think you are trying to explain some nice logical pattern here. If you dont mind ,can you please explain the notations.
I am sorry if you or somebody else have already done it earlier.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 738
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
thanks qhoc0010 for the explanation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
Posts: 33
Location: Vienna, Austria
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
WHY NOT B (Quore will not go bankrupt if it achieves a productivity increase of 20 percent over the next two years. ): The company might go bankrupt for reasons OTHER than failure to increase productivity. Meeting the productivity increase requirement does not guarantee that the company will stay in business.
WHY E: By not meeting the productivity increase requirement of attainable 20% (i.e. 10% actual and necessary for survivall), the company will definitely go bankrupt.
F.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 894
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 0
|
thadipalam wrote: qhc001000
I think you are trying to explain some nice logical pattern here. If you dont mind ,can you please explain the notations.
I am sorry if you or somebody else have already done it earlier.
Thanks
~ mean "NOT"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar topics |
Author |
Replies |
Last post |
|
Similar
Topics:
|
 |
|
|
Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore,
|
anandnk |
6 |
29 Dec 2003, 12:54 |
|
|
|
|
Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore,
|
sushom101 |
8 |
27 Oct 2005, 13:32 |
 |
1
|
|
Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore,
|
prude_sb |
16 |
26 Aug 2006, 17:05 |
|
|
3
|
|
Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore,
|
talk2pk |
15 |
10 Sep 2009, 20:21 |
|
|
5
|
|
Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore,
|
rohitgoel15 |
14 |
12 Aug 2010, 23:03 |
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
