It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 03:00

### 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

# CR-Passenger-jet division

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 91

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2007, 06:54
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 6 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Guys,

S15-Q16. In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane manufacturer implemented a program with the well-publicized goal of reducing by half the total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated by its passenger-jet division. When the program began in 1994, the divisionâ€™s hazardous waste output was 90 pounds per production worker; last year it was 40 pounds per production worker. Clearly, therefore, charges that the manufacturerâ€™s program has not met its goal are false.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The amount of nonhazardous waste generated each year by the passenger-jet division has not increased significantly since 1994.
B. At least as many passenger jets were produced by the division last year as had been produced in 1994.
C. Since 1994, other divisions in the company have achieved reductions in hazardous waste output that are at least equal to that achieved in the passenger-jet division.
D. The average number of weekly hours per production worker in the passenger-jet division was not significantly greater last year than it was in 1994.
E. The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not significantly less in 1994 than it was last year.

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 213

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2007, 07:13
E, it says that production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division are nearly equal as compared to 1994.

1994 hazardous waste - 90 pounds per production worker.

last year waste - 40 pounds per production worker.

Now denominator, which is nothing but the total workers, is nearly same for both the years

so to reduce the over all value ,numerator ,which is nothing but total waste in pounds should decrease.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 322

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

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2007, 22:13
B & E are close, but between the two i picked E for the reason same as above.

Javed.

Cheers!

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

Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 91

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 May 2007, 10:10
Thanks all for the explanations.

My pick was E. IMO is B. After I saw your explanations I am now more confident to say that the best answer should be E.

So, anyone who has some other thoughts regarding B, please post them.

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 111

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

### Show Tags

01 May 2007, 10:20
B.

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

Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 852

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 May 2007, 11:13
The hazardous waste is per production worker...so it doesnt matter whether the no. of production workers increased or decreased.

B is the answer as it states that the no. of jets were the same in both years lending support to the conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 159

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 May 2007, 12:20
Another vote for E

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 743

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Location: Dallas, Texas

### Show Tags

01 May 2007, 22:14
(B)

If the OA is not (B), please PM me and I'll rent a gun and buy a bullet and kill myself ...
_________________

"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 213

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 May 2007, 22:40

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 91

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 May 2007, 00:08
I donâ€™t have the OA since the source of is question is a GMAT Set. In this Set there is a referenced key for this question: B. I think â€œreferenced keyâ€

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 322

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

### Show Tags

02 May 2007, 02:04
Well i think both B & E are really close. Can anyone explain why one of them could be the best choice and why the other is not.

Javed.

Cheers!

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

Intern
Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 40

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

### Show Tags

02 May 2007, 12:08
B equates / talks about the number of airplanes made in the two years.

E talks about the number of production workers employed in the two years.

We need to make a judgement on whether the hazardous waste was lowered or not, and the only data we have relates hazardous waste to the number of production workers.

So B does not give enough information to make a judgement call, whereas E does.

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

Intern
Joined: 21 Nov 2005
Posts: 17

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 May 2007, 21:22
I agree with you E's out there.

Another way to look at it is to negate each choice.

In E, if it had said that the number of workers were significantly more, the waste per worker would decrease
1000/100 -> 10
1000/10 -> 100 and weaken the argument
In B, if there were less jets produced relative to 1994, there would be less waste period. But we can't conclude that the waste per worker had reduced UNLESS you further "assumed" that the number of workers were the same or less

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 172

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

### Show Tags

03 May 2007, 10:31
It has to be E

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

Manager
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 55

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

### Show Tags

14 May 2007, 14:40
one more for E

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

Director
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 523

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 May 2007, 15:52
Straight E.

If you increase production workers from 10 to 1000, keep waste pounds same, pounds/worker obviously would be less.

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 31

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

### Show Tags

14 May 2007, 17:01
Its E for me as well. An increase in the number of planes does not necessarily mean that there was an increase in the number of workers. So B is ruled out.

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

VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1340

Kudos [?]: 831 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

14 May 2007, 18:06
vineetgupta wrote:
The hazardous waste is per production worker...so it doesnt matter whether the no. of production workers increased or decreased.

B is the answer as it states that the no. of jets were the same in both years lending support to the conclusion.

The number of workers does matters. If the number of workers has increased the waste output would have increased as well. Read the following :
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane manufacturer implemented a program with the well-publicized goal of reducing by half the total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated by its passenger-jet division.

Since the conclusion states that the program was sucessful the number of workers is less or equal to the number of workers in 1994. Hence E can be ruled out.

Kudos [?]: 831 [0], given: 10

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 468

Kudos [?]: 136 [0], given: 0

Location: united states

### Show Tags

14 May 2007, 19:53
S15-Q16. In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane manufacturer implemented a program with the well-publicized goal of reducing by half the total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated by its passenger-jet division. When the program began in 1994, the divisionâ€™s hazardous waste output was 90 pounds per production worker; last year it was 40 pounds per production worker. Clearly, therefore, charges that the manufacturerâ€™s program has not met its goal are false.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The amount of nonhazardous waste generated each year by the passenger-jet division has not increased significantly since 1994.
B. At least as many passenger jets were produced by the division last year as had been produced in 1994.
C. Since 1994, other divisions in the company have achieved reductions in hazardous waste output that are at least equal to that achieved in the passenger-jet division.
D. The average number of weekly hours per production worker in the passenger-jet division was not significantly greater last year than it was in 1994.
E. The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not significantly less in 1994 than it was last year.

E is right . One needs to know the total number of workers in those two years for making a decision. That's why B is wrong.
_________________

for every person who doesn't try because he is
afraid of loosing , there is another person who
keeps making mistakes and succeeds..

Kudos [?]: 136 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 272

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 May 2007, 21:56
let us take 100 workers in 1994
the total waste = 100*90 = 9000

last year let us take the workers = 100 again
amt of waste = 100*40 = 4000

4K is less than half of 9K, so goal met, but number of workers is not less. Hence E is ruled out

B it is
_________________

AimHigher

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 0

14 May 2007, 21:56

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by