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 19 Jan 2017, 13:35

### 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

Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 701
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 415 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 May 2008, 10:39
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.
_________________

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

If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 158 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 1634
Location: Southern California
Schools: Chicago (dinged), Tuck (November), Columbia (RD)
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 201 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 555
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 352 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

02 May 2008, 11:37
E looks fine.
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 337
Location: Washington DC
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 81
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3384
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 282 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 513
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 200
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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 Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 In response to mounting public concern, an airplane 2 20 Apr 2012, 21:10
30 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 20 Dec 2007, 17:55
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane 18 30 Aug 2007, 19:54
Display posts from previous: Sort by