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.

It appears that you are browsing the GMAT Club forum unregistered!

Signing up is free, quick, and confidential.
Join other 500,000 members and get the full benefits of GMAT Club

Registration gives you:

Tests

Take 11 tests and quizzes from GMAT Club and leading GMAT prep companies such as Manhattan GMAT,
Knewton, and others. All are free for GMAT Club members.

Applicant Stats

View detailed applicant stats such as GPA, GMAT score, work experience, location, application
status, and more

Books/Downloads

Download thousands of study notes,
question collections, GMAT Club’s
Grammar and Math books.
All are free!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Re: Quore’s production structure----Please explain [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Feb 2016, 09:47

pkm9995109794 wrote:

what if the productivity is 18%.Does this mean Quore will go bankrupt because it is off by 2%. I dont feel E is correct

We know that if 10% is reachable so is 20%. This is a fact: if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable. If the productivity is increased by 18% it means it can reach 20%, we know that, and anyway is past the 10% threshold Quore needs to reach to not go bankrupt. Instead, if 20% is unattainable, so is 10%. Remember what we said before: if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable. If 10% is not reached, then Quore will go bankrupt: Quore, Inc., must increase productivity, 10 percent over the course of the next two years, or it will certainly go bankrupt.

Re: Because of the recent transformation of the market [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Jun 2016, 12:26

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Re: Because of the recent transformation of the market [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Jun 2016, 18:54

apple314 wrote:

Thanks Souvik. E seems very clear to me too. This is an inference question. I now that that the key to getting these right is knowing that the right answer must be true 100%. A-E are dog s+@t. They might happen, but we don’t know for sure.

With E though, we know Quore Inc. must increase productivity 10 percent over the course of the next two years or it will certainly go bankrupt.

We also know that if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable. So if 10, then it can also do 20. So basically 20 is the same thing as 10.

What happens if Quore Inc. can’t hit 20, then it can’t hit 10 either. What happens if Quore Inc. can’t it 10? Kaboom! The company will go bankrupt.

This answer has to be true 100% given the facts.

Stem says that if 10 is possible then 20 is attainable. It never says 10==20 Suppose a vendor earns Rs 10 doing 9AM-2PM shift; if he extends it to 6PM, he can get Rs 20 While he might end up earning Rs16

It never means that If he earns 16, he will not earn 10--- this is completely flawed. Not convinced with OA.

Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, General Management

GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34

GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V39

GPA: 2.8

Re: Because of the recent transformation of the market [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Sep 2016, 23:49

RatneshS wrote:

apple314 wrote:

Thanks Souvik. E seems very clear to me too. This is an inference question. I now that that the key to getting these right is knowing that the right answer must be true 100%. A-E are dog s+@t. They might happen, but we don’t know for sure.

With E though, we know Quore Inc. must increase productivity 10 percent over the course of the next two years or it will certainly go bankrupt.

We also know that if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable. So if 10, then it can also do 20. So basically 20 is the same thing as 10.

What happens if Quore Inc. can’t hit 20, then it can’t hit 10 either. What happens if Quore Inc. can’t it 10? Kaboom! The company will go bankrupt.

This answer has to be true 100% given the facts.

Stem says that if 10 is possible then 20 is attainable. It never says 10==20 Suppose a vendor earns Rs 10 doing 9AM-2PM shift; if he extends it to 6PM, he can get Rs 20 While he might end up earning Rs16

It never means that If he earns 16, he will not earn 10--- this is completely flawed. Not convinced with OA.

I had the same confusion, pay attention to the wordings in the stem and the answer choice E. Here the attainability of 20% productivity is in question not actually if the productivity increase is 20%. the Stem says if 10% increase is achievable then 20% is attainable. Also If 10% increase happens then no bankruptcy. here 10% is necessary not 20%. if 20% is not attainable then 10% increase is not achievable which means bankruptcy.

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

Show Tags

28 Sep 2016, 21:18

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Re: Quore’s production structure----Please explain [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Mar 2017, 06:06

How should we eliminate B?

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

My line of reasoning was Q needs 10% else it will certainly go bankrupt (Quore, Inc., must increase productivity, 10 percent over the course of the next two years, or it will certainly go bankrupt.). This is certain to happen if 10% is not reached but there could be a minor possibility of bankruptcy with even 20% increase. We are not given anything about the probability.

Re: Quore’s production structure----Please explain [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Mar 2017, 06:47

warriorguy wrote:

How should we eliminate B?

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

My line of reasoning was Q needs 10% else it will certainly go bankrupt (Quore, Inc., must increase productivity, 10 percent over the course of the next two years, or it will certainly go bankrupt.). This is certain to happen if 10% is not reached but there could be a minor possibility of bankruptcy with even 20% increase. We are not given anything about the probability.

I think your line of thinking is absolutely right. We can eliminate B on the basis that prod>10% doesn't warrant a safe future for Q but prod<10% surely means doom

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

Show Tags

19 Jun 2017, 01:29

Very good question indeed. I missed it because of B. But the actual answer is E.

The previous explanations are pretty clear. Thanks All.
_________________

What was previously considered impossible is now obvious reality. In the past, people used to open doors with their hands. Today, doors open "by magic" when people approach them

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

Show Tags

19 Jun 2017, 02:47

gautrang wrote:

onedayill wrote:

I myself choose B,

but after reading your explanation; If I would have thought in reverse direction then I would have chosen E;

In b/w B and E. I'll go with B because both of these stmts contradict each other.

I think bad question ...

Source please?

It is actually a really good question my friend,

B is incorrect because: The premise only say : "If not 10%, it will bankrupt", it never say anything about what if you achieve 10%, hell, you may still go bankrupt or you not, we don't know.

It is like saying "If David Beckham doesn't play, LA Galaxy will lose" but hey, even when Backham play, the LA Galaxy still lose, we only know for sure that the LA Galaxy will 100% lose if Beckham doesn't play.

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

Show Tags

24 Oct 2017, 07:45

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?

This a must be true question with all premises and no conclusion. The argument states that if Quore Inc does not increase productivity >>it will go bankrupt. Second: if a 10% is possible >> 20% increase is attainable.

Let's look at the answer options one by one.

(A) It is only Quore’s production structure that makes it possible for Quore to survive the transformation of the market: Nowhere in the argument is this stated. It does not mention about other production structures other than Quore's.

B) Quore will not go bankrupt if it achieves a productivity increase of 20 percent over the next two years.- This option mistakes a sufficient condition for a necessary condition. If a 10%>20% increase is not guaranteed it will go bankrupt. However, this does not mean that a 20% increase will necessarily mean no bankruptcy. X leads to Y can meant "Not Y>>Not X". However, it can't mean Not X leads to Not Y. X is "not achieving 10% here" and Y is "bankruptcy". So, this means not achieveing 10% leads to bankruptcy. However, achieving 10% does not lead to no bankruptcy situation (notX>>notY not being equal )

(C) If the market had not been transformed, Quore would have required no productivity increase in order to avoid bankruptcy. - nothing substantiates this

(D) Because of the transformation of the market, Quore will achieve a productivity increase of 10 percent over the next two years. - not necessarily true, they may or may not achieve

(E) If a 20 percent productivity increase is unattainable for Quore, then it must go bankrupt. - Yes!. This is a reformed version of X>>Y. If it does attain the increase, it will go bankrupt. Since 10%>>20% (as given in the argument)., so if 20% is not there, it means 10% is also not there. Hence, 20% can be used in place 10% here. E is correct.

Today we’re excited to announce two new premium themes: Small Business and Photo Blog . Small Business Small Business is a new premium theme for your entrepreneurial endeavors. At...

As part of our commitment to privacy and transparency, we’re updating our Privacy Policy . We want to give you more and clearer information about how we collect and use...

Product Leadership is a book that distills the best practices of Product Management into one source. Mark Ericsson is the founder of Product Tank and Mind the Product and...

“Keep your head down, and work hard. Don’t attract any attention. You should be grateful to be here.” Why do we keep quiet? Being an immigrant is a constant...