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

It is currently 22 Aug 2014, 05:50

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 public concern, an airplane

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
2 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1726
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 65

Kudos [?]: 277 [2] , given: 109

GMAT Tests User
In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2010, 20:08
2
This post received
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

66% (02:26) correct 34% (01:34) wrong based on 425 sessions
In response to mounting public 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2010
Posts: 98
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [1] , given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: Airplane manufacturer [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2010, 20:48
1
This post received
KUDOS
my ans goes to D....

ans plzzz
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 176
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 25

GMAT Tests User
Re: Airplane manufacturer [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2010, 21:29
I had gone for D too.

Quote:
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.


The above argument is based on the number of production workers. So I suppose we should choose an answer which counts the number of production workers and not the amount of nonhazardous waste/ no.of passenger jets/ average weekly hours of a single worker.

Only E does that.
_________________

Give [highlight]KUDOS [/highlight] if you like my post.

Always do things which make you feel ALIVE!!!

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Posts: 125
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 5 [1] , given: 17

Re: Airplane manufacturer [#permalink] New post 15 Oct 2010, 21:24
1
This post received
KUDOS
I went for E straight...since we are interested in total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated by its passenger-jet division and the premise given is in terms of waste generated per production worker...We can straight forward see the gap in which the no of persons which will effect the total output are assumed to be constant/same by the author.So only option E address this gap.


Also option D takes into consideration the no of hrs per week which will in no way affect the output/person as no such relation is mentioned anywhere in the passage.

Hope its clear!!!
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 15
Followers: 0

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

Re: Airplane manufacturer [#permalink] New post 16 Oct 2010, 08:42
IMO, though [D] looks like a contender, [E] is the BEST option.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 89
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 3

Re: Airplane manufacturer [#permalink] New post 16 Oct 2010, 12:00
metallicafan wrote:
In response to mounting public 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.

Why not this option?
[Reveal] Spoiler:
D


OA is


For me, E is the best and only answer.
This is a statistical question and author has related the per worker quantity to total produced quantity by the manyfacturer. So to stand the conclusion valid, there has to be an assumption that the number of worker has not got changed drastically.
Because if the number of workers have got increased significantly, even if the per worker waste production has decreased, the total waste produced by the company will be much higher and in that case the author's conclusion wont stand valid
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 36
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 3

Re: Airplane manufacturer [#permalink] New post 16 Oct 2010, 18:19
I went straight E. I am not sure how D was a contender
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 11
Followers: 0

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

Re: Airplane manufacturer [#permalink] New post 24 Oct 2010, 21:53
hey i got E as the ans but was really confused between B and E. Can anyone explain why its not B
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Posts: 109
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 12

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User
Re: Airplane manufacturer [#permalink] New post 25 Oct 2010, 10:07
its clearly E
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 443
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 30 [1] , given: 112

Re: Airplane manufacturer [#permalink] New post 26 Oct 2010, 19:53
1
This post received
KUDOS
rockjock wrote:
hey i got E as the ans but was really confused between B and E. Can anyone explain why its not B

hi Rock ..
If you go with B you are assuming that production of waste is directly proportional to number of jets produced ...However this assumption is not substantiated in the argument ( not even mentioned)....

waster per worker ( as per the question ) ==
total waste/ number of workers ...( and not number of jets produced / number of workers )

i picked E
regards
Expert Post
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1425
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 127

Kudos [?]: 591 [0], given: 62

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User Premium Member
Re: Airplane manufacturer [#permalink] New post 08 Oct 2011, 20:54
Expert's post
prephased the answer correctly....
Also,
on negating E, it destroys the entire argument
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 583
Location: United States
Concentration: International Business, General Management
GPA: 3.86
WE: Accounting (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 16

GMAT Tests User
Re: Airplane manufacturer [#permalink] New post 09 Oct 2011, 18:54
+1 E as its talking about production
_________________

+1 Kudos If found helpful..

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 37 [1] , given: 20

Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink] New post 15 Jan 2012, 08:00
1
This post received
KUDOS
Initially I went with D. After seeing the OA as E, I spent lot of time understanding this and came up with the following reasoning.

There are 3 possibilities why the amount of hazardous waste per worker came down:

1. Company produced less no. of planes
2. Company hired more no. of employees.
3. Company followed the new process.

As the question is asking about the assumption, we need to take the conclusion for granted, which means the reason for the reduction in the waste per worker is improvement in the process.

Now this improvement in the process also can happen in 3 situations:
1. Process improved at the time when company produced more no. of planes
2. Process improved at the time when company hired less no of employees
3. Process improved when company maintained counts of employees and produced planes are constant.
Note: we can ignore counter cases like producing less no. of planes and hiring more no of employees because in those cases, even if the process is not improved, there is a high chance that amount of waste per worker comes down.

Now in answer choices...

B comes as a contender for case 1. But it fails when we go for the extreme case (B says at least same no. of planes were produced. In the worst case, it could have produced high no. of planes. In such a case, still take the conclusion for granted, we should have a substantial information in the argument but that is missing)

E comes as a contender for case 2. Even in the worst case it stands. (worst case implies no. of employees in 1994 and now is same and it clearly tells that the conclusion is correct.)

D also comes as a contender, but we can not evaluate with the given info as we did in B & E.
_________________

-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti

Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Enjoying the GMAT journey....
Joined: 26 Aug 2011
Posts: 735
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V24
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 273 [0], given: 264

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User Premium Member
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink] New post 15 Jan 2012, 23:16
+1 E
_________________

Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING.

A WAY TO INCREASE FROM QUANT 35-40 TO 47 : a-way-to-increase-from-q35-40-to-q-138750.html

Q 47/48 To Q 50 + the-final-climb-quest-for-q-50-from-q47-129441.html#p1064367

Three good RC strategies three-different-strategies-for-attacking-rc-127287.html

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 58
GMAT 1: Q V
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [1] , given: 18

GMAT Tests User
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink] New post 05 Feb 2012, 02:30
1
This post received
KUDOS
metallicafan wrote:
In response to mounting public 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.


conclusion : charges that the manufacturer's program has not met its goal are false
premise :the division's hazardous waste output was 90 pounds per production worker; last year it was 40 pounds per production worker
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.

hazardous waste output per production worker = total amount of hazardous waste/ total number of people

so probable assumptions could be

1. total number of people has remain constant and total amt of hazardous waste is reduced to half .


now lets have a look at the options :

a)A. The amount of nonhazardous waste generated each year by the passenger-jet division has not increased significantly since 1994. company is planning to reduce the total amt of mat by half, however from this statement we could only ascertain that amt has not risen significantly. may be no of people have also halved n tht is the reason for reduction frm 0.9 to 0.4.

B. At least as many passenger jets were produced by the division last year as had been produced in 1994. out of scope... we are taking about hazardous waste amount per pessenger .... same number of jet does not let us ascertain that ratio could have come down. Probably same no of units produce more hazardous material

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. out of scope we are only taking abt hazardous material reduction by 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. again we are not concerned abt no of hr each workers put in. only parameter tht could influence
hazardous waste amount per passenger is either no of people or total amt

E. The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not significantly less in 1994 than it was last year. hazardous waste amount per passenger from 0.9 to 0.4 , with total no remaining constant translate to reduction in more thn half of hazardous waste amount . hence correct answer
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 36
Location: United States
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 8

Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink] New post 22 Feb 2012, 14:09
D puzzled me for a but but the discrepancy from 90 - 40 was too large to have happened even with overtime involved per week.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2011
Posts: 60
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 27

Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink] New post 20 Apr 2013, 12:45
D is irrelevant,as the stats. given are X pounds per production worker.The number of hours spent are irrelevant and so the answer is E.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 367
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 291

Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2013, 04:13
When I read E, my eyes lit up like a Christmas Tree!!! :D
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 195
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 1484

CAT Tests
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink] New post 15 Apr 2014, 15:21
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.

Wrong: nonhazardous waste is irrelevant.

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

Wrong:
Number of passenger jets is irrelevant

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.

Wrong:
Other divisions are out of scope.

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.

Wrong: Weekly hours is irrelevant.

E. The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not significantly less in 1994 than it was last year.
Correct:
If the number of workers has increased and the total waste remained the same, then the waste per person would decrease, but the total waste would remain the same.
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane   [#permalink] 15 Apr 2014, 15:21
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 In response to mounting public concern, an airplane piyushksharma 1 20 Apr 2012, 21:10
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 public concern, an airplane

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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®.