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

It is currently 25 Oct 2014, 10:34

Close

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
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.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 709
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 110 [0], given: 0

In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane [#permalink] New post 02 May 2008, 10:39
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

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.
_________________

Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 103 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Jets [#permalink] New post 02 May 2008, 10:48
E

They say they will reduce the amount the passenger divison generates by half.

They have reduced the amont per production worker by more than half.

To find out the actual amount reduced (or possibly gained) we would need to know how many workers there are.

So to claim that they are reaching their goals we have to assume that they haven't increased a large amount of workers.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 1634
Location: Southern California
Schools: Chicago (dinged), Tuck (November), Columbia (RD)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Jets [#permalink] New post 02 May 2008, 10:49
prasannar 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'm going to go with C. I think that it implies that if the other divisions achieved similar reductions, then the program did not really accomplish a whole lot, it just went with market forces.
_________________

Check out the new Career Forum
http://gmatclub.com/forum/133

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 560
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 108 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: Jets [#permalink] New post 02 May 2008, 11:37
E looks fine.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 341
Location: Washington DC
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 4

Re: CR: Jets [#permalink] New post 02 May 2008, 12:15
I would go for B. As B fails argument fails.
At least as many passenger jets were produced by the division last year as had been produced in 1994.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 81
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Jets [#permalink] New post 02 May 2008, 12:25
At first glance, my answer was B. If the number of jet produced remained constant, then the program to reduce the amount of hazardous material really worked. If the number of jet produced decreased, then it doesn't necessarily mean that the amount of waste per jet has decreased.

But now that I've read everyone's explanation. I think E is possible as well. What's the OA?
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3403
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: Jets [#permalink] New post 02 May 2008, 12:29
this is E..we are trying to find an assumption..the assumption cannot weaken the argument..so

E vs B

if E wasnt true then conclusion falls apart..

B ok so what if the produced less planes.maybe it was part of the plan to reduce garbage..
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 513
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 0

Reviews Badge
Re: CR: Jets [#permalink] New post 02 May 2008, 12:49
It has to be an E as the production waste is given in terms of per worker. Hence more workers means more total waste, and fewer works implies less total waste . Only if the workers remain same, does the argument hold
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 200
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Jets [#permalink] New post 02 May 2008, 13:12
prasannar 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 would say E.

You would have to assume that production remained the same from 1994 to last year to arrive at at least a 50% decline waste per worker produced. If it changed, how else would you calculate it.
Re: CR: Jets   [#permalink] 02 May 2008, 13:12
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane Gauss 14 15 Jul 2006, 01:03
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane gamjatang 18 07 Dec 2005, 07:15
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane nakib77 18 20 Sep 2005, 10:31
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane DLMD 6 13 Jan 2005, 15:56
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane chunjuwu 12 28 Dec 2004, 21:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.