That the application of new technology can increase the productivity o

Is the assumption in the above argument is that " new technology has helped the workers to increase the productivity over the year"and based on that answer choice A (which mentions additionally that number of workers remained constant) is correct?

Please explain.

Dear Monsoon,

This is a conclusion question. Can you tell me why are you looking for assumptions in this questions. Essentially, in conclusion/Must Be true question types, we are only concerned with information that is mentioned in the argument. Assumptions, by definition, are not mentioned in the argument.

Here is the reason why choice A is correct:

The argument states that coal output per miner has doubled. Hence, if the coal output per miner was 100 tonnes/yr 5 yrs back, it is 200 tonnes per year now. The argument also states that no new mines have opened.



Total coal production = (Number of Miners) X (Production per Miner)

Hence, if Number of Miners is unchanged, and the production per Miner has doubled (as per the argument), the total production will double.

Let me know if this is not clear.

-Rajat
_________________

New Gmat club project
Click here

Indeed, D is a very attractive answer choice, but it's a trap to those who didn't get the stem. This is a "must be true" question, in other words, the stimulus contains only facts (accepted as true) and each answer choice will state a conclusion. In answer D, the constant number of miners cannot be taken for granted as the output per miner increased, despite the fact that output remained constant. Therefore, D is not a good answer choice.

Good One;
The passage states that;
Tech leds to increased production leads to 2x coal/ miner than five years ago; no new mines opened.
A. If the number of miners working in Tribnian coal mines has remained constant in the past five years, Tribnia's total coal production has doubled in that period of time.
I guess this exactly concludes the statement that no. of miners are constant hence the technology is effective to increase the proaction / miner to double in five years.

B. Any individual Tribnian coal mine that achieved an increase in overall ouput in the past five years has also experienced an increase in output per miner.- Reverse logic trap; if A is increased and B is unit of A ; so B increased.

C. If any new coal mines had opened in Tribnia in the past five years, then the increase in output per miner would have been even greater than it actually was. Irrelevant comparison

D. If any individual Tribnian coal mine has not increased its output per miner in the past five years, then that mine's overall output has declined or remained constant. Reverse logic trap; if A is not increased and A has no. of B then B is not increased

E. In Tribnia the cost of producing a given quantity of coal has declined over the past five years. Distraction The price is not discussed in the passage. Sort of out of scope option.



Explanations with answers please. OA to follow.[/quote]

The last part of argument states that "Coal output per miner in Tribnia is double what it was five years ago, even though no new mines have opened."

Then why cant C be the conclusion?
It states, C. If any new coal mines had opened in Tribnia in the past five years, then the increase in output per miner would have been even greater than it actually was.

This is a correct one as well right? The technology has doubled the production, which improved prod per miner(PPM). If any new mines had opened, then PPM would have been greater than now...

Please help me explaining about this..

That the application of new technology can increase the productivity of existing coal mines is demonstrated by the case of Tribnia's coal industry. Coal output per miner in Tribnia is double what it was five years ago, even though no new mines have opened.

Which of the following can be properly concluded from the statement about coal output per miner in the passage?

Boil it down - the average coal output per miner, for ALL of tribinia, has doubled over the last 5 years.
that's it.
this means that there could be vast differences between miners; this is only a national average. in particular, it is totally possible that some miners, and some mines, are LESS productive than they were 5 years ago.

...and no new mines have opened.
however, the existing miners could have added, or laid off, miners. there is no information in the passage about the # of workers at each mine.
in fact, there could now be 100 times as many miners as there were before, at every mine.
or 1% as many as before. we have no idea at all.

A. If the number of miners working in Tribnian coal mines has remained constant in the past five years, Tribnia's total coal production has doubled in that period of time.- Correct

B. Any individual Tribnian coal mine that achieved an increase in overall ouput in the past five years has also experienced an increase in output per miner. Incorrect - you can't assume that the NATIONAL trend applies to INDIVIDUAL mines

C. If any new coal mines had opened in Tribnia in the past five years, then the increase in output per miner would have been even greater than it actually was. - Out of scope

D. If any individual Tribnian coal mine has not increased its output per miner in the past five years, then that mine's overall output has declined or remained constant. - Incorrect

E. In Tribnia the cost of producing a given quantity of coal has declined over the past five years.- Irrelevant - cost of producing is not even discussed

Answer A
_________________

Conclusion : That the application of new technology can increase the productivity of existing coal mines is demonstrated by the case of Tribnia's coal industry.

Premise : Coal output per miner in Tribnia is double what it was five years ago, even though no new mines have opened.

(A) If the number of miners working in Tribnian coal mines has remained constant in the past five years, Tribnia's total coal production has doubled in that period of time.

Answer : A
_________________

A is answer

1 miner ------ x Tonnes ( x tonnes/miner ) 2012
1miner. ------2x Tonnes. (2x tonnes/miner) 2017

Total say 10 miners

Total production -> 10x in 2012 and 20x in 2017 => production is doubled -> A is ans--- no need to go to other options in exam.

question is giving all credit to new technology not to work force or increased in number of mines so
A is the right choice

will anyone be able to tell me what is wrong with option D?
D. If any individual Tribnian coal mine has not increased its output per miner in the past five years, then that mine's overall output has declined or remained constant.

If the mine's overall output didn't increase...
then the mine's overall output will decline or remain constant...if not this, then what??

I understand option A but how do we eliminate answer choice B

I was confused between A and B, and chose B. Can you explain why not B?

The production per capita is compared with 5 years ago. imagine in this five years the growth is x%. then (1+x%)^5=2, so we can imagine this 'double' effect went up gradually.

The the choice A is telling that:
A. If the number of miners working in Tribnian coal mines has remained constant in the past five years, Tribnia’s total coal production has doubled in that period of time.

Tribina's total coal production has doubled in that period of time??? First, what does it mean by saying in that period of time? Does it mean in the five years? or to which year the question wants to compare. I thought this question was really vague so I did not choose A.

From the passage, we know that "coal output per miner in Tribnia is double what it was five years ago." Let's apply this information to the answer choices in question:


Notice that the evidence in the passage gives an increase in the overall coal output per miner in Tribnia. If we know that the overall rate doubled, can we conclude that any individual mine that achieved in increase in output also increased its output per miner?

In short -- no, we cannot conclude that. It is possible that some mines hired a bunch of additional miners, and even if their output increased, their output per miner stayed the same (or even decreased). The overall rate of coal output per miner must average out to be double the overall rate of five years ago, but we cannot conclude that any individual mine increased its rate of coal output per miner. (B) is out.

Now look at (A):

Again, the key piece of information in the passage to apply here is that "coal output per miner in Tribnia is double what it was five years ago." If each miner is, on average, producing double the amount of coal now that each miner produced five years ago, and if the number of miners has remained the same, then the total coal production must have doubled as well.

Think of it this way: Five years ago, 100 miners produced 100 tons of coal per day (is this a reasonable amount of coal? I have no idea). Now, there are still 100 miners, but their productivity has doubled. What is their total output? It is, of course, double what it was before -- so, 200 tons. Because the rate has doubled and the amount of workers has remained constant, the overall output must have doubled as well. (A) is our answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________

My two cents:

1: correct

2: No: what if the mine increased the output by hiring more people, thus bringing down the same per miner

3: No: predictions cannot really be inferred

4: No: what if the mine hired more people and increased output, reducing the same per miner

5: No: costs are not relevant

Hey, how is E out of scope?
Think of it this way, If the cost of producing coal has decreased, wouldn't that result in more output of coal produced? Doesn't that have a bearing upon the output per worker?
Cheap Coal = More Coal being processed = More Output per Worker !!!!

I totally understand why A is correct though, because it says the if the number of coal mine workers has remained constant over the last five years ( Period when the Coal miners saw a 2x increase in their output per worker) then the overall output must have doubled too!
Overall Output = Number of Workers x Output Per Worker.

Can someone explain why 'D' is wrong/'out of scope'?
Bunuel VeritasKarishma

In Tribnia, coal output per miner in Tribnia is double what it was five years ago, even though no new mines have opened.

Note that we are talking about coal output/miner = Total coal output / No of miners

This quantity will depend on how total coal output has changed and how no. of miners has changed. If it has doubled, it is possible that coal output has doubled while no of miners is same. It is possible that number of miners has become half while coal output is same. It is possible that output has become 4 times while no of miners has doubled and so on...

(A) If the number of miners working in Tribnian coal mines has remained constant in the past five years, Tribnia's total coal production has doubled in that period of time.

Correct. If number of miners has remained the same, then the total output must have doubled.

(B) Any individual Tribnian coal mine that achieved an increase in overall ouput in the past five years has also experienced an increase in output per miner.

Not true. If the output increased but number of miners increased too, output per miner may not have increased.

(C) If any new coal mines had opened in Tribnia in the past five years, then the increase in output per miner would have been even greater than it actually was.

No. It depends on the number of miners, output of rest of the mines etc.

(D) If any individual Tribnian coal mine has not increased its output per miner in the past five years, then that mine's overall output has declined or remained constant.

Not true. A mine may have increased its output but increased its number of miners too. In that case, its output per miner may not have increased though its output would have increased.

(E) In Tribnia the cost of producing a given quantity of coal has declined over the past five years.

Nothing known about cost of producing coal.

Answer (A)