It is currently 25 Jun 2017, 02:30

### 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

# In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 453
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jan 2005, 16:56
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

### HideShow timer Statistics

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 division's hazardous waste output was 90 pounds per production worker; last year it was 40 pounds per production worker. Clearly, therefore, charges that the manufacturer'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.
VP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1433

### Show Tags

13 Jan 2005, 18:05
E.....I think it has been discussed it before.
Manager
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 54
Location: Seattle, WA

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2005, 23:56
I think this is B.
If there were not as many jets produced, the waste would not be the same quantity.
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1209
Location: Taiwan

### Show Tags

24 Jan 2005, 08:56
The answer is E. Let's compare.

The program's purpose: reducing by half the total yearly amount of waste.

Evidenc: in 1994, the waste was 90 pounds / per worker
last year, the waste was 40 pounds / per worker

Conclusion: manufacture met its gogal

We can assume that in 1994 the total waste was 360 pounds with 4 workers.
If the total waste last year was still 360 pounds, but the number of worker was 9, then the average waste was 40. It is clearly that the manufacture didn't achieve his goals which reduces by half the total yearly amount of waste.

Therefore, the assumption should be choice E.

please give me some suggestion, thanks.
Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 596

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2005, 16:38
Can somebody refute D?
_________________

Regards, S

Manager
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 60

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2005, 20:19
saurya_s wrote:
Can somebody refute D?

Hazardous waste per production worker has nothing to do with the number of hours those workers put into work. You may assume that the less hours employees work, the less amount of hazardous waste they generate, but this is an assumption that is out of the argument's scope.

The answer is E.
Manager
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 164
Location: Atlanta , GA

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2005, 20:22
"E"
25 Jul 2005, 20:22
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
In response to mounting public concern, an airplane 0 17 Jul 2016, 20:37
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane 0 15 Jan 2012, 22:40
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane 8 02 May 2008, 14:12
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane 8 22 Dec 2007, 08:48
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane 18 05 Sep 2007, 12:23
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO 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®.