At the Moslund Plant, the assembly line consists of 3 conveyor belts.

Question

At the Moslund Plant, the assembly line consists of 3 conveyor belts. In addition, there are 3 inspection posts, one at the end of each conveyor belt. In Year 10 (Y10), 15 workers were employed directly on the line; 3 of these workers staffed the inspection posts, one at each post. In Y10, the Moslund Plant assembly line had an output of 250,000 units and generated a profit of $15,000,000.

Win2020 · Accepted Answer

Which one of the following statements is supported by the information provided about the assembly line and the assembly-line modernization plan at the Moslund Plant?

Soln:
As given in the first tab- 
Yr 10 : Output =250,000 and Profit = 15,000,000
For Yr 11- check third tab to find the changes in output and profit after Automation
 
1) Inspection Post Automation- Increased output by 2% and Profit by5% i.e Output =255,000 and Profit =15,750,000
2)Conveyor Belt speed increase -Increased output by 3% and Profit by 4% i.e Output = 257500 & Profit=15,600,000
3) Administrative cost- Increased profit by 1% i.e Profit=15,150,000

Now lets check each given choices

A. On the assembly line, conveyor-belt speed is directly proportional to total annual output of assembled units.
 - We do not know what was the speed of conveyor belt, we only know output. So Eliminate

B. Administrative unit restructuring accounted for the greatest increase in the dollar amount of profit from Y10 to Y11.
 - As cal above , administrative unit restructuring is not the greatest increase in dollar amt of profit. It is lowest among all three elements. So Eliminate

C. Conveyor-belt speed increase accounted for the greatest increase in the dollar amount of profit from Y10 to Y11.
 - Clearly no , conveyor belt speed accounted less than automation so eliminate.

D. Conveyor-belt speed increase accounted for the greatest increase in annual output of assembled units from Y10 to Y11.
 -  CORRECT-- Yes as can been seen from cal done above . Conveyor belt increase accounted for greatest increase in output .

E. Inspection-post automation accounted for the greatest increase in annual output of assembled units from Y10 to Y11.
 -No it is incorrect based on cal above. So Eliminate.

Hope it helps.

hassan233 · Answer

Question 2:

Part 1: No.

output in year 10 was 250,000 (Q) and the number of direct line workers (N) was 15. 
250,000/15 = 16,666.67 which is > than 10,000 and therefore not less than 10,000

Part 2: No.
Q/N in year 10 is 16,666,67 as calculated in part 1. 
If we know N decreased, and we know Q increased, then we know the number increased overall. When the numerator increases the number as a whole increases, when the denominator decreases the whole number increases. This means between the two years, Q/N did NOT remain unchanged.

Part 3: Yes.
Q/N is 16,666.67 from part 1, which is less than 30,000
Now we need to check year 11. 
In year 11, they laid off 3 people, meaning they now only have 12 workers (N).
Between year 10 and 11, output increased by 5%, so output went from 250,000 => 262,500
(1.05)(250,000) = 262,500
Q/N = 262,500/12 = 21,875, which is also less than 30,000.

Angieless · Answer

For each of the following statements about the Moslund Plant assembly line in Y11, select Yes if it is true based solely on the information provided. Otherwise, select No.
 
The assembly line generated a profit of $16,500,000.  (Yes as this is 15m$ +10%)

Total output from the assembly line increased by 25,000 units over the total output for Y10.  (No as 5% of 250K units is not equal to 25K units)

Administrative unit restructuring accounted for 1% of the total profit.  (CAN SOMEONE PLEASE ADVISE ON THIS ONE?? WHY IS THE ANSWER NO SINCE IN THE TAB WE CAN SEE BELOW RESULTING INCREASE IN PROFIT 1%

layeredcake · Answer

I believe this is so because we have to account for the 'cost to implement,' which is $15000, when determining total profit.

2794Aditya · Answer

Administrative unit restructuring accounted for an increase of 1% of Y10's profit; not 1% of total profit. As we do not know how much this factor accounted in Y10, this cannot be determined.

2400 · Answer

Angieless  in the first question, why do you not subtract the cost to implement from the profit?
Obviously the initiatives increase the assembly line profit initially 10% ($15M * 1.1 = $16.5M), but would you not have to subtract the $160,000 cost to implement from that to be $14.9M in Y11? How do you know not to subtract cost to implement?

2794Aditya  on the third question, it shouldn't matter how much it makes up of Y10 given that the question is asking about Y11. The total profit increases 1% (so $150,000, or $135,000 if you include the cost of implementation, to my first point). 150,000 / 16,500,000 would be less than 1% but round to 1%

Thanks all for any help you can provide

mSKR · Answer

Administrative unit restructuring accounted for 1% of the total profit.
>>
Profit of Y10= $15,000,000.
Administrative unit restructuring accounts for increase in profit by 1% ( $15,000,000 *10% total mentioned = 1,500,000)== 150,000$
this 150k USD is increase. 
We don't know how much Administrative unit restructuring accounts in $15,000,000.
then we can not calculate percentage of Administrative unit restructuring in total profit( we dont know how much Administrative unit restructuring accounts in Y10 profit. we only know in 1% of increase in profit)

Cellchat · Answer

:- Administrative unit restructuring accounted for 1% of the total profit.

Note that the statement above the table refers to the Moslund Plant assembly line  in Y11 .

1% increase of total profit (in 2010) = 15,000,000 x 1% = 150,000
1% total profit (in 2011) = 16,500,000 x 1% = 165,000

Since 150,000 does not equal 165,000 statement is false.

Hope it helps.

jj17 · Answer

Can you please explain why A is wrong ?? because as i understand.. the speed of conveyor belt was increased by a fixed % and the resultant output increase because of it is 3%. and directly proportional means if one one quantity is increased the other increases and table clearly shows that 3% increase in output was because of conveyor belt speed increase. What am i not understanding correctly ??

Meditator007 · Answer

jj17 : On choice A
- For Y11, all we know is that conveyer-belt speed increased by x%, resulting in 3% increase in total Y11 output.
- For Y12, let say the conveyer-belt speed were to increase by y%, resulting in z% increase in total Y12 output.

If x/3 = y/z, conveyer-belt speed is directly proportional to total annual output of assembled units. If x/3 ≠ y/z, conveyer-belt speed is NOT directly proportional to total annual output of assembled units. Since we don't know x, y, or z, we can't conclude that A is supported.

casvickers · Answer

Can someone answer Angieless's first question? If the cost to implement all the improvements in the plan are accounted for, the profit would not be $16.5M. Why is the official answer Yes??

KarishmaB · Answer

Question 3

ID: 100297 
 For each of the following statements about the Moslund Plant assembly line in Y11, select  Yes  if it is true based solely on the information provided. Otherwise, select  No .

The assembly line generated a profit of $16,500,000.

TAB 1: In Y10, the Moslund Plant assembly line had an output of 250,000 units and generated a profit of $15,000,000. 
 TAB 3: Increase in profit in Y11 as a percentage of profit of Y10 is 10%. This means profit in Y11 is $16.5 million. All costs have already been accounted for when profit is calculated. We are not talking about revenue, but profit. To get profit, we already account for costs. We are given that total increase in profit is 10%. This means that it has become 16.5 mil

Select YES

Total output from the assembly line increased by 25,000 units over the total output for Y10.

TAB 3: Total output increased by 5%. The outout of Y10 was 250k units. 25,000 units is 10% of this, not 5%.

Select NO

Administrative unit restructuring accounted for 1% of the total profit.

Administrative unit restructuring profit increased by 1% as compared with Y10 profit. It was not 1% of Y11 profit. Since Y11 profit was different from Y10 profit, the percentage would be different. Hence

Select NO

Some interesting MSR discussions here:  
  https://youtu.be/hdCH-U1p8dw  
  https://youtu.be/xL631VXGjSg  
  https://youtu.be/2cY39qHenc0  
  https://youtu.be/bql1Mw0gl_A

Can,Will · Answer

In the tab 3, what does "resulting increase in output for Y11, as a percent of Y10 output " mean ? kindly elaborate . 
 KarishmaB

KarishmaB · Answer

It means that due to modernization, by how much did Y11 output increase as a percent of Y10 output. 
So say Y10 output was 100 units. Y11 output increased by 5% overall which means Y11 output was 105 units.

sghosh1096 · Answer

Question 3 3rd part asks - "  Administrative unit restructuring accounted for 1% of the total profit." 
 total profit is 10% (taking both in terms of %) 
 now Administrative unit restructuring contributed to 1% overall profit.

so the A.U.R accounted for 1%/10% *100% = 10% of the total profit

basically it's a word problem trap

Rickooreoisb · Answer

I doubt this is official guide question. I searched it and nowhere found this.

Rickooreoisb · Answer

For question 1,

Tab 3 says - Increasing speed of belt resulted in 3% increase output as a part of restructuring

Then why is Option A wrong ? - On the assembly line, conveyor-beit speed is directly proportional to total annual output of assembled units.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Hi Rickooreoisb

From the Table, we can get the following information.

-Inspection-post automation: 2%
-Conveyor-belt speed increase: 3%
-Administrative restructuring: 0%
-Total: 5%

So the largest contributor to the increase in output is clearly the  conveyor-belt speed increase (3%) , which is greater than the contribution from inspection-post automation (2%).

The information tell us that "Conveyor-belt speeds were increased by a fixed percentage". But it is not mentioned that speed is directly proportional to total annual output of assembled units. So  (A)  is incorrect.

Rickooreoisb · Answer

Sajjad1994

Firstly thank you for the reply

I agree with the official answer

Could you help me understand how direct proportionality would typically be indicated in this case?

Is it correct to say that if we observe only one instance of an increase in speed (for example from 5 to 8 - which could also be expressed as a fixed percentage increase) it would be incorrect to conclude that the relationship is directly proportional? In other words, would we need to check two or three additional scenarios to confirm that the ratio remains constant before claiming direct proportionality?

Yes	No
		\(\frac{Q}{N}\) was less than 10,000 for Y10.
		\(\frac{Q}{N}\) was unchanged from Y10 to Y11.
		\(\frac{Q}{N}\) remained below 30,000 in Yi0 and Y11.

At the Moslund Plant, the assembly line consists of 3 conveyor belts.

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

	On the assembly line, conveyor-beit speed is directly proportional to total annual output of assembled units.
	Administrative unit restructuring accounted for the greatest increase in the dollar amount of profit from Y10 to Y11.
	Conveyor-belt speed increase accounted for the greatest increase in the dollar amount of profit from Y10 to Y11.
	Conveyor-belt speed increase accounted for the greatest increase in annual output of assembled units from Y10 to Y11.
	Inspection-post automation accounted for the greatest increase in annual output of assembled units from Y10 to Y11.

GMAT Multi-Source Reasoning (MSR) Questions

At the Moslund Plant, the assembly line consists of 3 conveyor belts.

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards