Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore, [#permalink]
12 Aug 2010, 22:03

4

This post received KUDOS

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

45% (02:19) correct
54% (01:21) wrong based on 155 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 for 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.

The explanation given in one of the gmat thread's is: they tell you that if it doesn't increase by 10%, it will go bankrupt. this is diagrammed as: (1) if (not)10% -> then bankrupt. next it says if 10% is possible, then 20% is possible. this is diagrammed as: 10% possible -> then 20% possible next, you should always look at the converse of statements, as that will usually be the key to unlocking the problem. the converse of this statement is:

(2) if 20% not possible -> 10% not possible now you have everything you need. if you add equation 1 to the end of equation 2, you will see that E is true: if 20% not possible ->10 % not possible -> then bankrupt therefore, E is the answer

But how can we deduce Point 2? if 20% is not possible then 10% may/ may not be possible !

Re: recent transformation [#permalink]
12 Aug 2010, 23:43

I pick B

Understand now why E is correct, good explanation rohitgoel15. kudo for you.

rohitgoel15 wrote:

(2) if 20% not possible -> 10% not possible now you have everything you need. if you add equation 1 to the end of equation 2, you will see that E is true: if 20% not possible ->10 % not possible -> then bankrupt therefore, E is the answer

But how can we deduce Point 2? if 20% is not possible then 10% may/ may not be possible !

If A always lead to B => If B doesn't exist A can't exist. If Yao Minh play, the rocket always win => If the rocket doesn't win, Yao Minh must not play.

Re: recent transformation [#permalink]
13 Aug 2010, 07:17

1

This post received KUDOS

onedayill wrote:

I myself choose B,

but after reading your explanation; If I would have thought in reverse direction then I would have chosen E;

In b/w B and E. I'll go with B because both of these stmts contradict each other.

I think bad question ...

Source please?

It is actually a really good question my friend,

B is incorrect because: The premise only say : "If not 10%, it will bankrupt", it never say anything about what if you achieve 10%, hell, you may still go bankrupt or you not, we don't know.

It is like saying "If David Beckham doesn't play, LA Galaxy will lose" but hey, even when Backham play, the LA Galaxy still lose, we only know for sure that the LA Galaxy will 100% lose if Beckham doesn't play.

Affiliations: Volunteer Operation Smile India, Creative Head of College IEEE branch (2009-10), Chief Editor College Magazine (2009), Finance Head College Magazine (2008)

Joined: 25 Jul 2010

Posts: 471

Location: India

WE2: Entrepreneur (E-commerce - The Laptop Skin Vault)

It's (E) by contrapositive. You have the implication "If a 10% increase is possible, then a 20% increase is possible." The contrapositive of that is "If a 20% increase isn't possible, then a 10% increase isn't possible." And we know as a given fact that if a 10% increase isn't possible, then the company is going bankrupt. Hence, (E).

(B) is wrong because it's an inverse relationship, which is not equivalent. A -> B does not mean that ~A -> ~B. Nowhere in the original statement does it say that the company WILL DEFINITELY NOT GO BANKRUPT if they improve 10%, or 20%, or even 150%. You just know that they WILL definitely go bankrupt if they don't improve 10%.

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? It is important to note in the passage that if 20 % is attainable then 10% if easily attainable. Passage quote -"Quore’s production structure is such that if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable. But is 10% cannot be attained then 20% cannot be attained too. (A) It is only Quore’s production structure that makes it possible for Quore to survive the transformation of the market. Nothing given to support this (B) Quore will not go bankrupt if it achieves a productivity increase of 20 percent over the next two years. Just a restatement of the passage information. No inference (C) If the market had not been transformed, Quore would have required no productivity increase in order to avoid bankruptcy.This has nothing to do with the question asked (D) Because of the transformation of the market, Quore will achieve a productivity increase of 10 percent over the next two years. No data supports this prediction. (E) If a 20 percent productivity increase is unattainable for Quore, then it must go bankrupt. the passage says Quore’s production structure is such that if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable. so if I cannot get 20 that means I cannot get 10 simply because if I get 10 I can get 20. The explanation given in one of the gmat thread's is: they tell you that if it doesn't increase by 10%, it will go bankrupt. this is diagrammed as: (1) if (not)10% -> then bankrupt. next it says if 10% is possible, then 20% is possible. this is diagrammed as: 10% possible -> then 20% possible next, you should always look at the converse of statements, as that will usually be the key to unlocking the problem. the converse of this statement is:

(2) if 20% not possible -> 10% not possible now you have everything you need. if you add equation 1 to the end of equation 2, you will see that E is true: if 20% not possible ->10 % not possible -> then bankrupt therefore, E is the answer

But how can we deduce Point 2? if 20% is not possible then 10% may/ may not be possible !

Re: Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore, [#permalink]
05 Jul 2012, 02:36

I totally agree with answer as E

I wanted one small clarification why option C is wrong.See the conclusion given is " Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore, Inc., must increase productivity". and one premise is "Quore’s production structure is such that if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable " . If we pay attention to first statement it clearly says that the urgency was caused by transformation of market then the option C which points out exact meaning as those posed from sentence in para must be valid . Please provide precise analysis why this option should be left out and how it has nothing to do with question.

Re: Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore, [#permalink]
19 Jun 2013, 14:44

3

This post received KUDOS

veenu08 wrote:

can someone please explain why C is wrong?

Hi veenu08.

C has a very common logical fallacy.

The logical fallacy is: Fact: X happens ==> Y MUST happen Conclusion: X does not happen ==> Y MUST NOT happen This is wrong conclusion. Why? Because X is only one of many factors that cause Y happen. If X does not happen, other factor may cause Y happen.

For example: Fact: I have a flu ==> I MUST stay at home to avoid further health problem Conclusion: I don't have a flu ==> I MUST NOT stay at home to avoid further health problem

Is the conclusion correct? Nope, because flu is only one of many factors that causes health problem. Even I don't have a flu, but doctor recommends me that "I MUST stay at home" because there's a seasonal flu and many people are infected.

Back to the question. market transformation happens ==> Quore MUST increase productivity to avoid bankruptcy market transformation DOES NOT happen ==> Quore MUST NOT increase productivity to avoid bankruptcy ==> WRONG because market transformation IS NOT THE ONLY FACTOR. For example: Quore did not increase productivity, but the company still went to bankruptcy because of aggressive competition or its customer went to bankruptcy and did not make payment on time, blah blah......

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Rules for posting on the verbal forum When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions Avoid posting from unreliable sources such as 1000 series.

Re: Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore, [#permalink]
11 Oct 2013, 21:05

Alright this is what I understood, to win a race a person must run 10 miles atleast. If he is able to run 10 miles then he is also able to run 20 miles. The answer says that he is unable to run 20 miles, hence he cannot win. What if he runs 10 miles maybe he ran 15 mile or even 19 miles but he could not run 20 miles. He still wins. Its just that he didn't run 20 miles. The criteria clearly suggests requirement of 10 miles to be completed.

gmatclubot

Re: Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore,
[#permalink]
11 Oct 2013, 21:05