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

It is currently 21 Oct 2014, 02:35

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

It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 558
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 2

It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink] New post 23 Feb 2009, 12:43
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the leakage of minute amounts of dangerous chemicals into its plant. In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Hamilton Inc. would thereby avoid incurring three million dollars worth of damages, since currently Hamilton Inc. pays that amount annually in compensation for health problems said to be caused by the chemical fumes.

Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above?

(A) Companies similar to Hamilton Inc. also pay compensation for health damages caused by fumes.

(B) After leaky Hamilton Inc. equipment has been repaired, several years will elapse before that the equipment begins to leak again.

(C) Hamilton Inc. would need to raise their prices to consumers if it were to spend two million dollars in one year on repairs.

(D) The number of sick days Hamilton’s employees take can vary widely from year to year.

(E) Factory workers are more likely to be exposed to fumes while in Hamilton’s plant, but administrative staff files almost all of the claims for compensation said to be caused by the fumes.

Please explain
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 68
Followers: 1

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

Re: CR: Hamilton Inc [#permalink] New post 23 Feb 2009, 15:35
It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the leakage of minute amounts of dangerous chemicals into its plant. In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Hamilton Inc. would thereby avoid incurring three million dollars worth of damages, since currently Hamilton Inc. pays that amount annually in compensation for health problems said to be caused by the chemical fumes.

Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above?

(A) Companies similar to Hamilton Inc. also pay compensation for health damages caused by fumes. -- Out of scope. We are only concerned about Hamilton.

(B) After leaky Hamilton Inc. equipment has been repaired, several years will elapse before that the equipment begins to leak again. -- This statement comes close to supporting the argument. If it takes several years before the equipment begins to leak, then Hamilton would be saving the money it pays towards compensation and still does not have to repair the equipment.
(C) Hamilton Inc. would need to raise their prices to consumers if it were to spend two million dollars in one year on repairs. -- Irrelevant. The argument is not about raising prices.

(D) The number of sick days Hamilton’s employees take can vary widely from year to year. -- Irrelevant. This statement does nothing to support the argument.

(E) Factory workers are more likely to be exposed to fumes while in Hamilton’s plant, but administrative staff files almost all of the claims for compensation said to be caused by the fumes. -- It does not matter who files the claims. We don't know to whom is Hamilton paying the compensation. It could be paying to the government.

Any comments guys.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1300
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Hamilton Inc [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2009, 07:28
yes i agree with chaven. Since the company pays an annual amount of 3 millions while the repair will cost 2 millions. The company will save in all these years.Ans shld be B
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 243
Followers: 1

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

Re: CR: Hamilton Inc [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2009, 09:29
chalven wrote:
It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the leakage of minute amounts of dangerous chemicals into its plant. In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Hamilton Inc. would thereby avoid incurring three million dollars worth of damages, since currently Hamilton Inc. pays that amount annually in compensation for health problems said to be caused by the chemical fumes.

Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above?

(A) Companies similar to Hamilton Inc. also pay compensation for health damages caused by fumes. -- Out of scope. We are only concerned about Hamilton.

(B) After leaky Hamilton Inc. equipment has been repaired, several years will elapse before that the equipment begins to leak again. -- This statement comes close to supporting the argument. If it takes several years before the equipment begins to leak, then Hamilton would be saving the money it pays towards compensation and still does not have to repair the equipment.
(C) Hamilton Inc. would need to raise their prices to consumers if it were to spend two million dollars in one year on repairs. -- Irrelevant. The argument is not about raising prices.

(D) The number of sick days Hamilton’s employees take can vary widely from year to year. -- Irrelevant. This statement does nothing to support the argument.

(E) Factory workers are more likely to be exposed to fumes while in Hamilton’s plant, but administrative staff files almost all of the claims for compensation said to be caused by the fumes. -- It does not matter who files the claims. We don't know to whom is Hamilton paying the compensation. It could be paying to the government.

Any comments guys.

B is what was the most appropriate. I did not understand the argument made in the stem. Is it arguing for repairs to be made or against repairs to be made?
_________________

-----------------------
tusharvk

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 919
Followers: 52

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 17

Re: CR: Hamilton Inc [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2009, 11:23
B has sense
what is this E option about?
OOS-out of Scope?
tusharvk wrote:
chalven wrote:
It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the leakage of minute amounts of dangerous chemicals into its plant. In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Hamilton Inc. would thereby avoid incurring three million dollars worth of damages, since currently Hamilton Inc. pays that amount annually in compensation for health problems said to be caused by the chemical fumes.

Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above?

(A) Companies similar to Hamilton Inc. also pay compensation for health damages caused by fumes. -- Out of scope. We are only concerned about Hamilton.

(B) After leaky Hamilton Inc. equipment has been repaired, several years will elapse before that the equipment begins to leak again. -- This statement comes close to supporting the argument. If it takes several years before the equipment begins to leak, then Hamilton would be saving the money it pays towards compensation and still does not have to repair the equipment.
(C) Hamilton Inc. would need to raise their prices to consumers if it were to spend two million dollars in one year on repairs. -- Irrelevant. The argument is not about raising prices.

(D) The number of sick days Hamilton’s employees take can vary widely from year to year. -- Irrelevant. This statement does nothing to support the argument.

(E) Factory workers are more likely to be exposed to fumes while in Hamilton’s plant, but administrative staff files almost all of the claims for compensation said to be caused by the fumes. -- It does not matter who files the claims. We don't know to whom is Hamilton paying the compensation. It could be paying to the government.

Any comments guys.

B is what was the most appropriate. I did not understand the argument made in the stem. Is it arguing for repairs to be made or against repairs to be made?

_________________

math-polygons-87336.html
competition-for-the-best-gmat-error-log-template-86232.html

Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 997
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 5

Re: CR: Hamilton Inc [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2009, 11:48
I went with B which seemed the most logical, and then finally chose E.

(B) After leaky Hamilton Inc. equipment has been repaired, several years will elapse before that the equipment begins to leak again.

B is irrelevant since we're directly talking about incurring losses due to damages. We're not concerned what happens years down the row (though it's logical to think so)

(E) Factory workers are more likely to be exposed to fumes while in Hamilton’s plant, but administrative staff files almost all of the claims for compensation said to be caused by the fumes.

If the leak is fixed, factory workers (the people most likely to report) will stop claiming for damages. If so, the staff will stop processing these claims, thus yielding the savings.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 32
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR: Hamilton Inc [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2009, 15:23
For me its a clear E

Premise: 2 Million to fix the leaks
Argument: 3 million savings from claims due to chemical fumes.

The gap is 1 million extra saving that should be coming from somewhere. Statement says identify a sitution which if true will fix this gap of 1 million.

only E gives the correct explanation that admistrative staff are filling other type of compensation as chemical fumes there by amounting to 3 million.

hope it helps
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 256
Followers: 2

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

Re: CR: Hamilton Inc [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2009, 18:41
I think B is the strongest.
E could be interpreted differently, and could either support or weaken the argument.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 432
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 4

Re: CR: Hamilton Inc [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2009, 19:18
I'll go with B

Cheers,
Unplugged
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 997
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 5

Re: CR: Hamilton Inc [#permalink] New post 27 Feb 2009, 06:09
OA PLEASE.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 19
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR: Hamilton Inc [#permalink] New post 24 Mar 2009, 23:50
IMO B
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2008
Posts: 162
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 8

Re: CR: Hamilton Inc [#permalink] New post 27 Oct 2009, 02:31
reply2spg wrote:
It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the leakage of minute amounts of dangerous chemicals into its plant. In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Hamilton Inc. would thereby avoid incurring three million dollars worth of damages, since currently Hamilton Inc. pays that amount annually in compensation for health problems said to be caused by the chemical fumes.

Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above?

(A) Companies similar to Hamilton Inc. also pay compensation for health damages caused by fumes.

(B) After leaky Hamilton Inc. equipment has been repaired, several years will elapse before that the equipment begins to leak again.

(C) Hamilton Inc. would need to raise their prices to consumers if it were to spend two million dollars in one year on repairs.

(D) The number of sick days Hamilton’s employees take can vary widely from year to year.

(E) Factory workers are more likely to be exposed to fumes while in Hamilton’s plant, but administrative staff files almost all of the claims for compensation said to be caused by the fumes.

Please explain

Notice that in the stem"In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Hamilton Inc. would thereby avoid incurring..." and "pays that amount annually" clearly show that B should be the OA because only several years after the equipment is repaired had the compensation occurred.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2009
Posts: 129
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 3

Re: CR: Hamilton Inc [#permalink] New post 27 Oct 2009, 11:13
looks like B only supports the conclusion. OA?
Re: CR: Hamilton Inc   [#permalink] 27 Oct 2009, 11:13
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Experts publish their posts in the topic A supermarket adverstised that it would stop BeckyRobinsonTPR 3 22 Jul 2013, 10:49
3 There is no point in spending millions of dollars on lexis 34 24 Jun 2008, 02:18
It would cost Rosetown one million dollars to repair all of rkatl 8 09 Aug 2006, 18:31
It would cost Rosetown one million dollars to repair all of qhoc0010 4 21 Jan 2005, 14:45
million dollar question: Stormgal 1 04 Jan 2005, 06:19
Display posts from previous: Sort by

It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the

  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®.