Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 23 Nov 2014, 07:56

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane

Author Message
TAGS:
SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1743
Location: Dhaka
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane [#permalink]  20 Sep 2005, 10:31
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (01:56) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 11 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 divisionâ€™s hazardous waste output was 90 pounds per production worker; last year it was 40 pounds per production worker. Clearly, therefore, charges that the manufacturerâ€™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.

OA to be posted.
_________________

hey ya......

VP
Joined: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 1023
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

A. The amount of nonhazardous waste generated each year by the passenger-jet division has not increased significantly since 1994.

If this was true, then the goal wasn't meant.

B. At least as many passenger jets were produced by the division last year as had been produced in 1994.

Scope. More jets/less jets...what is the total number of jets now and how does it affect the total waste ?

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.

Scope..so what if other divisions have achieved this ?

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.

Tempting..the question to ask it that if this is indeed an assumption..if we negate this..does this break down the argument ? It doesn't..the workers may work the same number of hours or more...what matters is the waste that they produce and the total number of workers.

E. The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not significantly less in 1994 than it was last year.

Bingo..for the total waste to go down ( given as waste per production hour ), the number of workers have to remain the same. Otherwise, the conclusion that the goal was indeed met would be false.
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 486
Location: Chicago
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

IMO E,

It is stupid to connect hazardous waste produced by Jets to number of people in the company..all you have to do is add more people to bring the percapita waste down...
_________________

Fear Mediocrity, Respect Ignorance

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 257
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

E here as well. Same reasoning as ranga41
Director
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 595
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Clearly E
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 459
Location: New York
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Public concern [#permalink]  20 Sep 2005, 15:48
Go with E.

per the argument, the pounds "per production worked" decreased from 90 to 40. If the number of workers did not change, the decrease is good...but what is the number of workers inceased? Therefore E is the assumption.

nakib77 wrote:
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 divisionâ€™s hazardous waste output was 90 pounds per production worker; last year it was 40 pounds per production worker. Clearly, therefore, charges that the manufacturerâ€™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.

OA to be posted.
SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1743
Location: Dhaka
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

Isn't E so obvious. I picked E as well.

But to my surprise OA is B. Can anyone explain that.
_________________

hey ya......

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 486
Location: Chicago
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

OA sounds BS to me...

you can always reason out any answer, As per B, If the company produces less jets obviously the hazardous waste produced by the company will go down and consequently the percapita waste will also go down, provided the no of people do not decrease.

Choice E talks about the number of people increasing, in which case also the percapita waste will go down, provided the number of jets manufactured does not increase considerably, This argumen IMO is more apt because the argument talks about waste per worker...
_________________

Fear Mediocrity, Respect Ignorance

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1743
Location: Dhaka
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

ranga41 wrote:
OA sounds BS to me...

you can always reason out any answer, As per B, If the company produces less jets obviously the hazardous waste produced by the company will go down and consequently the percapita waste will also go down, provided the no of people do not decrease.

Choice E talks about the number of people increasing, in which case also the percapita waste will go down, provided the number of jets manufactured does not increase considerably, This argumen IMO is more apt because the argument talks about waste per worker...

Can't agree with you more...... this OA really pissed me off
_________________

hey ya......

Director
Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 905
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

yes (E).
Director
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 804
Location: Singapore
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Oh I just love it when we guys are right and the OA is wrong!!
_________________

Cheers, Rahul.

Director
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 847
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 1

rahulraao wrote:
Oh I just love it when we guys are right and the OA is wrong!!

Share the same feeling, Rahul!!!
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 997
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 5

Re: CR - Public concern [#permalink]  19 Nov 2008, 16:50
Any takers on this?
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1434
Followers: 35

Kudos [?]: 233 [0], given: 1

Re: CR - Public concern [#permalink]  19 Nov 2008, 17:19
wow! there must be some thing wrong with me. I picked B

Here is what I did.

Goal is to reduce by half the total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated by its passenger-jet division

1994 HW = 90lb per worker

2004 HW = 40 lb per worker
HW per worker = total wastage / # of W's
Total wastage = wastage per flight X number of flights or sum of all wastages from each flight

Now looking at the conclusion charges that the manufacturerâ€™s program has not met its goal are false.

HW pw can go down to 40 if the number of PW's is significantly less in 1994 compared to 04. denominator increased

Also HW pw can go down to 40 if the number of flight's is less in 2004 compared to 2004.
numerator decreased

Both B and E fit the assumption and I ended up choosing B as soon as I found it optimal. goal was about the reduction in HW and if the goals are really met then the waste should have gone down by the waste going down and not by increasing the number of workers. But I can see why any one can pick E. Slippery slope!
Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 119
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Public concern [#permalink]  19 Nov 2008, 19:05
If this is a Kaplan question, I'll be seriously pissed off -- the OA is nonsense. The correct answer has to be E, without any doubt whatsoever. The conclusion is that the manufacturer reduced the TOTAL yearly output of hazardous waste from its passenger jet division by half. The evidence is that its output of hazardous waste PER PRODUCTION WORKER was 90 pounds in 1994, but was 40 pounds last year.

Because the conclusion is about total waste and the evidence is about waste per worker, it is blatantly obvious that the argument depends on the number of workers NOT having increased significantly from 1994 to last year. This is E.

The number of jets produced (choice B) is completely irrelevant, because we have no information at all about the amount of waste per jet. We don't even have any information about number of workers per jet produced, so we can't relate (B) to the evidence that way either. Flights are even more irrelevant: Flights relate to what the airplane does after it LEAVES the manufacturer and goes into service with an airline. That has nothing to do with the argument at all.

What's the source of the question?
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

CEO
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2500
Followers: 55

Kudos [?]: 521 [0], given: 19

Re: CR - Public concern [#permalink]  19 Nov 2008, 22:35
Agree that it should be E though "significantly" is little ambigious.

B is more ambigious.
_________________
Director
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 770
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 99

Re: CR - Public concern [#permalink]  19 Dec 2008, 11:17
clearly E.
Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 79
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Public concern [#permalink]  01 Jan 2009, 03:27
E
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 307
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 7

Re: CR - Public concern [#permalink]  02 Jan 2009, 07:20
Even i hv opted for B ...same logic as well explained by icandy ..
E is also very close contendor the right choice ..
Sad part is that still not able to strike of E with rock solid logic ...
Verbal gurus ... help pls !!
_________________

"CEO in making"

CEO
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2613
Followers: 307

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 0

Re: In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane [#permalink]  12 Nov 2014, 20:01
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane   [#permalink] 12 Nov 2014, 20:01
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane 8 17 Oct 2006, 20:47
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane 14 15 Jul 2006, 01:03
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane 18 07 Dec 2005, 07:15
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane 6 13 Jan 2005, 15:56
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane 12 28 Dec 2004, 21:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane

 Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ]

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.