In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 16 Jan 2017, 14:01

### 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:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1459
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 255 [0], given: 0

In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2007, 19:54
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

I am not sure if I agree with the OA on this one...post later.
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 248
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2007, 20:05
A - not enough info to make an assumption
B - not enough info to make an assumption
C - not relevant to the question
D - no reference to hours in the context
E is the answer. If the # of workers has increased since 1994, the lbs/per production worker might be lower even if the the amount of waste has increased.
Director
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 743
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2007, 05:36
Goal clearly is reducing the TOTAL amount of waste.
We can achieve that by reducing the number of planes as well but nothing in argument leads us to believe that less planes mean less waste. So, we can eliminate B.

For D, Well, waste has decreased per worker regardless of the number of hours they have worked. Not relevant.

E seems relevant.

Last edited by asaf on 31 Aug 2007, 08:25, edited 1 time in total.
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3384
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 281 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2007, 06:10
B makes perfect sense to me...
Director
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 743
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2007, 06:17
fresinha12 wrote:
B makes perfect sense to me...

educate us!
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 May 2004
Posts: 311
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2007, 08:06
What the argument is saying is that the waste management program that was enacted worked..since the total pounds of waste per worker was 90 before and now it is 40.

However, the only way one could say that is if the number of jets produced was not less than it was before..say for instance the 90 pounds of waste were produced per worker when 2000 jets were made. However, if 40 pounds of waste were produced when only 300 jets were made, the reduction was not because of any new process or program but because total waste was less since fewer jets were made

E is not correct..we don't care if the number of workers were fewer
Actually fewer workers would lend credence that the notion that the program was working since we are asking a bout pounds of waster per worker..waste/workers

If E said there is not sigifnicantly MORE workers then we would have a winner..because if there were more workers, that would mean the reduction per worker was not because of any programs..but because of the fact the denominator got larger..
Current Student
Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 44
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR from another GMAT site [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2007, 08:30
I do not agree for both B and E

B is wrong because of the possibility of increase in number of workers

and

E is wrong because of the possibility of decrease in number of jets produced
Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 200
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2007, 11:05
Wow..i'm really stuck between B and E. When I think about choice E, I still think about the fact that the number of planes would have to be the same. Which actually is choice B. I could be wrong but that's my reasoning anyways.
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 931
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 175 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2007, 17:42
the first choice that came to mind was choice B but I could see the reasoning to choose E. What is the OA?
Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 213
Followers: 1

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

Re: CR from another GMAT site [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2007, 22:02
bkk145 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
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.

I am not sure if I agree with the OA on this one...post later.

My answer is B. If the number of jets produced has not reduced then the programmes goal is met. Answer D can also be considered, in that if the number of weekly hours per production worker has increased, that can also lead to reduced hazardous waste outputper production worker. But, first conditions is the foremost. Hence i vote for B.

What is OA?
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1459
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 255 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2007, 13:21
Thanks guys for the hardwork.

OA=B

Same reasoning with most of you, I didn't agree with B because if you have the same number of plane in 1994 and now, you can still have different ratio of pollution per worker by having different amount of worker. I feel that you need another assumption on top of this one that the number of workers has not changed.

But then again, I didn't totally agree with E either because you need further assumption here that 1994 and now have same number of plane.

I ended up picking E, but it was wrong.
Director
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 743
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2007, 13:31
bkk145 wrote:
Thanks guys for the hardwork.

OA=B

Same reasoning with most of you, I didn't agree with B because if you have the same number of plane in 1994 and now, you can still have different ratio of pollution per worker by having different amount of worker. I feel that you need another assumption on top of this one that the number of workers has not changed.

But then again, I didn't totally agree with E either because you need further assumption here that 1994 and now have same number of plane.

I ended up picking E, but it was wrong.

not sure if you would know but wondering what is the source of this?
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1459
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 255 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2007, 13:34
asaf wrote:
bkk145 wrote:
Thanks guys for the hardwork.

OA=B

Same reasoning with most of you, I didn't agree with B because if you have the same number of plane in 1994 and now, you can still have different ratio of pollution per worker by having different amount of worker. I feel that you need another assumption on top of this one that the number of workers has not changed.

But then again, I didn't totally agree with E either because you need further assumption here that 1994 and now have same number of plane.

I ended up picking E, but it was wrong.

not sure if you would know but wondering what is the source of this?

It's from s c o r e t o p, but the original source, I don't know.
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 298
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Re: CR from another GMAT site [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2007, 20:56
bkk145 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
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.

I am not sure if I agree with the OA on this one...post later.

I would have to choose E even after hearing the reasoning for B.

The reason Being that the goal was to reduce TOTAL waste. One way to reduce waste is to make fewer planes. The TOTAL waste would be reduced...the business might suffer, but that is not part of the scope of the question. However, it is possible to have even more pollution by adding workers which artifically reduces the aggregate amount of waste.

I cannot agree with B because the question is dealing with total waste, bot total waste per aircraft.
Intern
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 32
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2007, 19:12
I disagree with OA=B.

conclusion: 0.5x90*#worker in 1994 >40*#worker present

If E is false, the conclusion would be false as well, therefore E must be true

What is the source?
Intern
Joined: 04 Jul 2007
Posts: 45
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2007, 08:17
This is a question from Sets and the official answer is E.
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1459
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 255 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2007, 08:44
success4sure wrote:
This is a question from Sets and the official answer is E.

Hmm, which "Sets" are you talking about?
I will be happy if the OA I got is wrong.
Manager
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 140
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2007, 03:53
agree with E
Total amount of waste = number of worker * waster per production worker
If No of worker is much less in 1994 than last year then Total amount of waste of last year would be more than half of that of 1994.
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 295
Location: Russia, Moscow
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2007, 11:23
I suppose the answer is E. While doing SC1000 I have encountered several mistakes. It can be so in this case as well.
05 Sep 2007, 11:23
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 In response to mounting public concern, an airplane 2 20 Apr 2012, 21:10
29 In response to mounting public concern, an airplane 20 14 Oct 2010, 20:08
1 In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane 15 17 Apr 2009, 02:55
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane 8 02 May 2008, 10:39
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane 8 20 Dec 2007, 17:55
Display posts from previous: Sort by