It is currently 16 Dec 2017, 10:54

### 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

# Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore,

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 21

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

Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2005, 04:52
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore, Inc., must increase productivity, 10 percent over the course of the next two years, or it will certainly go bankrupt. In fact, however, Quore's production structure is such that if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must on the basis of them also be true?

(A) It is only Quore's production structure that makes it possible fro Quore to survive the transformation of the market.

(B) Quore will not go bankrupt if it achieves a productivity increase of 20 percent over the next two years.

(C) If the market had not been transformed, Quore would have required no productivity increase in order to avoid bankruptcy.

(D) Because of the transformation of the market Quore will achieve a productivity increase of 10 percent over the next two years.

(E) If a 20 percent productivity increase is unattainable for Quore, then it must go bankrupt.

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

VP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1429

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

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2005, 09:09
"E" for me. Will explain if correct.

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

Director
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 847

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2005, 14:07
(B) for me.

Quore will not go bankrupt if it achieves a productivity increase of 20 percent over the next two years.

As stated from the premises:
10 percent over the course of the next two years, or it will certainly go bankrupt

Just a form of logic like this
A -> B
NOT B -> NOT A

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 224

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2005, 08:37
my choice is C. Market changes lead to the need to increase.

even with a 20% inc. the firm can still go bankrupt. the passage did not mention whether a 10% inc will guarantee no bankruptcy.

This one is tricky

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 21

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

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2005, 21:45
Sorry for the delayed post.
The OA is E.
Can someone explain how?

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

Director
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 847

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Jan 2005, 05:27
HSWKM wrote:
Sorry for the delayed post.
The OA is E.
Can someone explain how?

OK, I got it now after a second though.

According to the stems:

Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore, Inc., must increase productivity, 10 percent over the course of the next two years, or it will certainly go bankrupt. In fact, however, Quore's production structure is such that if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable.

Let
A = 10% increase
B = bankrupt
C = 20% increase

We have
A <-> ~B (A if and only B)
A -> C

According to (E)

(E) If a 20 percent productivity increase is unattainable for Quore, then it must go bankrupt.
Rewrite it as: ~C -> B

Yes, since
~C -> ~A
=> ~A -> B
=> ~C -> B

The "key" is that "10% increase will make it not go bankrupt, if not, it will go bankrupt".

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 73

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

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2005, 16:14
qhc001000

I think you are trying to explain some nice logical pattern here. If you dont mind ,can you please explain the notations.

I am sorry if you or somebody else have already done it earlier.

Thanks

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

Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 601

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2005, 18:19
thanks qhoc0010 for the explanation

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
Posts: 30

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

Location: Vienna, Austria

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2005, 08:07
WHY NOT B (Quore will not go bankrupt if it achieves a productivity increase of 20 percent over the next two years. ): The company might go bankrupt for reasons OTHER than failure to increase productivity. Meeting the productivity increase requirement does not guarantee that the company will stay in business.

WHY E: By not meeting the productivity increase requirement of attainable 20% (i.e. 10% actual and necessary for survivall), the company will definitely go bankrupt.

F.

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

19 Jan 2005, 08:07
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore,

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne 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®.