|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1255
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane [#permalink]
 28 Dec 2004, 22:49
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane manufacturer implemented a program with the well-publicized goal of reducing by half the total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated by its passenger-jet division. When the program began in 1994, the
division’s hazardous waste output was 90 pounds per production worker; last year it was 40 pounds per production worker. Clearly, therefore, charges that the manufacturer’s program has not met its goal are false.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The amount of nonhazardous waste generated each year by the passenger-jet division has not increased significantly since 1994.
B. At least as many passenger jets were produced by the division last year as had been produced in 1994.
C. Since 1994, other divisions in the company have achieved reductions in hazardous waste output that are at least equal to that achieved in the passenger-jet division.
D. The average number of weekly hours per production worker in the passenger-jet division was not significantly greater last year than it was in 1994.
E. The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not significantly less in 1994 than it was last year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 772
Location: Milwaukee
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
E it is, good one 
_________________
Praveen
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
One more for 'E'
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1255
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
praveen_rao7 wrote: E it is, good one Hello,
Could you explain? Please
Because I think the question described the production of each worker, is there any matter with the number of worker?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 772
Location: Milwaukee
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
chunjuwu wrote: praveen_rao7 wrote: E it is, good one Hello, Could you explain? Please Because I think the question described the production of each worker, is there any matter with the number of worker? This is a really bad twisted question. Here Author employs -ve of a -ve is +ve technique. The key to solving this problem is to understand the last sentence "Clearly, therefore, charges that the manufacturer’s program has not met its goal are false" really means "clearly the goal has been met". Now, if you read the question in this context you would see in order for author's assumption to be true E has to be assumed. Does it make sense now?.
_________________
Praveen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 495
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
i am between B and E. there is a significant relationship between the number of workers in production and actual planes produced. if they build the same number of planes in both yeras, [choice B] => waste per worker goes from 90 to 40 for the same amount of planes => they cut the waste more than half. hence answer B
but E on the other hand might also be a good assumption. the wording in E seems strange to me. anyone has a better explanation on E please post it. whats the OA??
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1581
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 0
|
I agree with E.............................................
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1544
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
"E" it is.
It is a good ques. Had me thinking between D and E. However, there is only 1 measure of failure of success here, that is total prod waste should reduce. Author assumes that Total waste (i.e. measure of success)= lbs / worker * no of workers. Author is clearly assuming that between the yrs the no of workers r same and the total waste can be directly proportional to lbs/worker. "B" is out of scope as the stem doesn't tell anything abt a relation between production of no of planes to waste prod, relation is only between workers and waste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 392
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Yes! E it is. Praveen god exp! 
Saurabh Malpani
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 232
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
chunjuwu wrote: praveen_rao7 wrote: E it is, good one Hello, Could you explain? Please Because I think the question described the production of each worker, is there any matter with the number of worker? E is the right choice. B is a trap/decoy. same number of workers with each creating less waste in pound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 738
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
good one. E..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 613
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Can somebody refute D?
_________________
Regards, S
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2004
Posts: 121
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I picked E as well but am curious to see some one refute B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Posts: 726
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
B talks about count of planes. There is no data in the argument that says the higher the # of planes, the higher is the waste. May be there are some planes who discharge less and some discharge more. This way the overall affect is same.
Take an example with E.
1994 - Lets say there were 100 workers, so total = 90*100 = 9000
2005 - Lets say workers have increaded 10 times = 40 * 1000 = 40,000
So clearly # of workers affect the conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 613
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
How about D? Does it mean that fewer employees are giving the desired ratio of waste/worker by working more hours?
_________________
Regards, S
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar topics |
Author |
Replies |
Last post |
|
Similar
Topics:
|
 |
|
|
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane
|
DLMD |
9 |
13 Jan 2005, 16:56 |
 |
|
|
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane
|
nakib77 |
18 |
20 Sep 2005, 11:31 |
|
|
|
|
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane
|
gamjatang |
18 |
07 Dec 2005, 08:15 |
|
|
|
|
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane
|
Gauss |
14 |
15 Jul 2006, 02:03 |
|
|
|
|
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane
|
KC |
8 |
17 Oct 2006, 21:47 |
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
