Last visit was: 12 Jul 2024, 17:18 It is currently 12 Jul 2024, 17:18
Toolkit
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# Flimco Solutions has instituted a bold plan to dramatically reduce its

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Manager
Joined: 16 May 2017
Posts: 158
Own Kudos [?]: 86 [10]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q47 V39
WE:General Management (Retail Banking)
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Posts: 297
Own Kudos [?]: 196 [5]
Given Kudos: 115
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
General Discussion
Director
Joined: 09 Aug 2017
Posts: 686
Own Kudos [?]: 425 [1]
Given Kudos: 778
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2016
Posts: 56
Own Kudos [?]: 15 [0]
Given Kudos: 55
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V40
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Flimco Solutions has instituted a bold plan [#permalink]
I went for C. It says that plan does not do anything about carbon reduction since most people do not drive to work.

E - 'Some' is not strong enough to weaken the argument
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2018
Posts: 93
Own Kudos [?]: 21 [0]
Given Kudos: 187
Concentration: Finance, Statistics
GMAT 1: 620 Q45 V31
Re: Flimco Solutions has instituted a bold plan to dramatically reduce its [#permalink]
i rejected e because of some employees
Intern
Joined: 06 Aug 2020
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 17
Flimco Solutions has instituted a bold plan to dramatically reduce its [#permalink]
Flimco Solutions has instituted a bold plan to dramatically reduce its "carbon footprint," that is, the amount of nonrenewable energy it expends, by allowing two-thirds of its Salemville workforce to work from home up to 24 hours per week. By allowing its employees this telecommuting option, the company estimates that its carbon emissions will be significantly reduced because workers will not have to drive back and forth between theirhomes and Flimco headquarters.

Which of the following, if true, would most threaten the success of Flimco's plan?

(A) Most of the employees drive fairly late-model cars, many of which attain higher-than-average gasoline mileage.
This doesn't help explain why the plan will fail. The employee cars will still use gasoline to drive to work.

(B) Some employees will need special accommodations in order to be able to do their jobs efficiently from their homes.
Concerns regarding employee efficiency at home doesn't help the argument.

(C) A majority of Flimco's employees travel to and from work on a light-rail system that runs every 15 minutes, regardless of ridership.
Alright, something that might help us explain why the plan might not pan out as thought of. If majority of the employees travel through public transport and don't use personal cars for their everyday commute, then making people work from either home or office might not significantly reduce the company's carbon footprint. Keep.

(D) Flimco Corporation offered a similar option to its workers but many of them chose not to telecommute.
Flimco Corporation & Flimco Solutions are two different companies. Our only focus of this argument is Flimco Solutions. Adding another company's plan doesn't help the argument.

(E) Some of Flimco's workers live in homes that are not energy efficient, and would expend more nonrenewable energy maintaining the climate in their homes telecommuting than they would if they left their residences to work elsewhere.
E has a number of issues with it.
1. Some of Flimco's workers: Even if some workers are inefficient in saving energy at home, many other employees might be. Doesn't weaken the argument.
2. What workers do at home is not a concern of this argument. The argument focuses on Flimco's carbon footprint as whole, contributed by its employees with regards to their work settings & not in their personal settings.
3. "than they would if they left their residences to work elsewhere": Leaving their residence for work elsewhere is not our concern. We're focused only on their commute back and forth to work.

Manager
Joined: 14 Jan 2020
Posts: 100
Own Kudos [?]: 18 [1]
Given Kudos: 107
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V37
GPA: 4
Re: Flimco Solutions has instituted a bold plan to dramatically reduce its [#permalink]
1
Kudos

I would like to point out that there is significant confusion between C and E in this que.
E should be a winner as C says Majority travel by train not expending any or some Carbon fuel,yet even if 1 person is not travelling by that and travelling by a less efficient transport - by making them not travel the company will eventually be reducing the net fuel consumption

EG - total employees - 100
by train - 99 - fuel used - 0
by car - 1 - fuel used - x amount
if all are made to sit home the fuel consumption reduces by X

Option E - though not perfect as some is ambiguous word which ranges from 1 to the whole lot of employees - it is still better
Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2014
Posts: 89
Own Kudos [?]: 103 [0]
Given Kudos: 232
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: Flimco Solutions has instituted a bold plan to dramatically reduce its [#permalink]
Poor Question.
First things first, Question stem simplification.
Filmco wanted to reduce its carbon emissions. So WFH is given to its employees, reducing the carbon footprint of personal commute SIGNIFICANTLY.
Now, mostly C and E competes.
C says majority of employees did commute through light rail. What is the majority? Assume 51%, then the rest 49% did commute by car, taxi or others. Now, will giving the salemville employees WFH reduce the carbon footprint significantly? Definitely yes! It is not majority though , but 49% is SIGNIFICANT.
On the other hand, E says that employees increase their carbon footprint. If we want to assume that this carbon footprint is not the one intended by the company, then no choice fits in.
Please let me know whether there is a flaw in my reasoning!

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Joined: 13 Jun 2019
Posts: 197
Own Kudos [?]: 96 [0]
Given Kudos: 645
GMAT 1: 490 Q42 V17
GMAT 2: 550 Q39 V27
GMAT 3: 630 Q49 V27
Re: Flimco Solutions has instituted a bold plan to dramatically reduce its [#permalink]
What does "threaten the success " mean?

I was thinking the question meant the plan would do more harm than good.

I was doubtful of the option E because of the word "some" but I still chose it because E was causing more harm if the plan is implemented.

But C was simply failing to meet the goal of the plan.

Was I thinking too much?
Manager
Joined: 25 Oct 2017
Posts: 149
Own Kudos [?]: 77 [0]
Given Kudos: 705
GMAT Focus 1:
655 Q87 V80 DI80
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
Flimco Solutions has instituted a bold plan to dramatically reduce its [#permalink]
shauryahanda wrote:

I would like to point out that there is significant confusion between C and E in this que.
E should be a winner as C says Majority travel by train not expending any or some Carbon fuel,yet even if 1 person is not travelling by that and travelling by a less efficient transport - by making them not travel the company will eventually be reducing the net fuel consumption

EG - total employees - 100
by train - 99 - fuel used - 0
by car - 1 - fuel used - x amount
if all are made to sit home the fuel consumption reduces by X

Option E - though not perfect as some is ambiguous word which ranges from 1 to the whole lot of employees - it is still better

After accounting for the word "significantly reduced" from the passage, your analysis proves why option C is indeed correct. So we don't care about the minority that did not use the train because if they are still commuting in their traditional mode, they will not contribute towards reducing the carbon footprint anyway.­
Intern
Joined: 31 Oct 2023
Posts: 32
Own Kudos [?]: 9 [0]
Given Kudos: 165
Flimco Solutions has instituted a bold plan to dramatically reduce its [#permalink]
MartyMurray. Need your help between C and E. Why is C a better option? In C, if the employees do not travel by train and instead WFH, wouldn't the carbon emission go down? Why is it the correct answer? Doesn't seem to threaten the conclusion
Director
Joined: 16 Jul 2019
Posts: 589
Own Kudos [?]: 261 [0]
Given Kudos: 165
Flimco Solutions has instituted a bold plan to dramatically reduce its [#permalink]
Jayam12 wrote:
MartyMurray. Need your help between C and E. Why is C a better option? In C, if the employees do not travel by train and instead WFH, wouldn't the carbon emission go down? Why is it the correct answer? Doesn't seem to threaten the conclusion

­Agree. E is a better weakener. Some = 1 to all. On the other hand, We are not sure if light-rail system is used frequently by 2/3 of employees or light-rail system is energy efficient. ­

Indeed this question is busted. KarishmaB Bunuel
Tutor
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 1020
Own Kudos [?]: 1999 [1]
Given Kudos: 88
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Re: Flimco Solutions has instituted a bold plan to dramatically reduce its [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Jayam12 wrote:
MartyMurray. Need your help between C and E. Why is C a better option? In C, if the employees do not travel by train and instead WFH, wouldn't the carbon emission go down? Why is it the correct answer? Doesn't seem to threaten the conclusion

­I don't think either (C) or (E) works very well.

(C) is problematic because, if some significant minority of employees drive to work, then by having employees work from home, the company could "significantly" reduce its carbon footrprint.

(E) is problematic because of "some." The fact that "some" employees will expend more energy in working from home doesn't mean that the plan won't work. "Some" could be a very small number.

That said, I kind of prefer (E) over (C) because (C) just qualifies the proportion of employees who will reduce energy use - while not all employees will reduce energy use, it's likely that some will - while (E) indicates that there is an offsetting factor that will work against the plan and, depending on how many "some" is, may even result in the plan making things worse rather than better.

Overall, this question isn't ideal, and I certainly wouldn't try to learn something from the fact that (C) is the credited answer.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15105
Own Kudos [?]: 66592 [1]
Given Kudos: 436
Location: Pune, India
Flimco Solutions has instituted a bold plan to dramatically reduce its [#permalink]
1
Kudos

Oppenheimer1945 wrote:
Jayam12 wrote:
MartyMurray. Need your help between C and E. Why is C a better option? In C, if the employees do not travel by train and instead WFH, wouldn't the carbon emission go down? Why is it the correct answer? Doesn't seem to threaten the conclusion

­Agree. E is a better weakener. Some = 1 to all. On the other hand, We are not sure if light-rail system is used frequently by 2/3 of employees or light-rail system is energy efficient. ­

Indeed this question is busted. KarishmaB Bunuel

­
I wouldn't say (E) is better. I would have marked (C) here. Focus on the intent of the author.

He says " the company estimates that its carbon emissions will be significantly reduced because workers will not have to drive back and forth between their homes and Flimco headquarters."

So the reason given is savings in energy spent during commute.

(C) A majority of Flimco's employees travel to and from work on a light-rail system that runs every 15 minutes, regardless of ridership.

Says majority of people commute by this rail which will continue with the same frequency, even if it is empty. So it doesn't matter whether employees are commuting or not, the same energy is being used. So not commuting is not saving energy.
It is a weakener of the plan.

(E) Some of Flimco's workers live in homes that are not energy efficient, and would expend more nonrenewable energy maintaining the climate in their homes telecommuting than they would if they left their residences to work elsewhere.

I don't know what "some" is. It could be very few or many. Hence I don't know if this option has a "significant" impact.