It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 11:27

### 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

Author Message
Director
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 984

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 0

Location: South Korea
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2005, 08:15
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 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.
_________________

Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn !

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 453

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

Location: New York

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2005, 08:30
has to be E. If the number of workers which you divide the pounds of waste changes, then they may not have met some og their goals.

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 54

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

Location: Indianapolis, IN
Re: CR - Airplane waste [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2005, 08:53
gamjatang wrote:
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane manufacturer implemented...

The first part of this sentence gave me a much-needed laugh. I almost made this mistake on one of my AWA essays! Thank goodness I caught it before submitting. Thanks for the chuckle.

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

SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798

Kudos [?]: 170 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2005, 09:54
Yes E is the necessary assumption because if the number of workers increased then the total pollutants can be spread out.

Kudos [?]: 170 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5206

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2005, 10:14
Straight (E). Classic statistic derivation CR.

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1700

Kudos [?]: 473 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2005, 11:56
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 473 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 984

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 0

Location: South Korea

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2005, 22:19
GMATT73 wrote:
Straight (E). Classic statistic derivation CR.

At first I thought so, too. However, please consider this question one more time.
_________________

Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn !

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 223

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany
Re: CR - Airplane waste [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2005, 02:12
I don't know abut you guys but I choose immediately B here. If you choose E, then you would have more workers last year and this is corrobarates the argument that the goals were not reached. Since more people divided by the same waste reduces the waste per worker on paper.

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5206

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2005, 08:25
gamjatang wrote:
GMATT73 wrote:
Straight (E). Classic statistic derivation CR.

At first I thought so, too. However, please consider this question one more time.

S##T!

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 14 Nov 2005
Posts: 37

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

Location: NYC
Re: CR - Airplane waste [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2005, 08:33
sandalphon wrote:
I don't know abut you guys but I choose immediately B here. If you choose E, then you would have more workers last year and this is corrobarates the argument that the goals were not reached. Since more people divided by the same waste reduces the waste per worker on paper.

Good one. I would've gone wrong here.

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

Intern
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 39

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

Location: Houston

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2005, 20:30
Quote:
I don't know abut you guys but I choose immediately B here. If you choose E, then you would have more workers last year and this is corrobarates the argument that the goals were not reached. Since more people divided by the same waste reduces the waste per worker on paper.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what E is saying, but if you choose E, then you WILL NOT have significantly more workers last year versus 1994, which is exactly what you need to know before you can say the goal is being met.

Am I getting the argument wrong here? I'm assuming the argument in this case is that the manufacturer is meeting its goal b/c of the per production worker waste being reduced from 90 to 40, this means nothing unless you know something about the number of workers and more specifically you need to know that the number of workers last year was similar to that of 1994 (call it X). Then you have 90*X pounds of waste in '94 and 40*X pounds of waste last year and you can say the manuf is meeting its goal. But you need statement E to do this.

Let me know what I'm missing here, GMAT is in two days and CR is a weak point for me.

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

Director
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 984

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 0

Location: South Korea

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2005, 21:13
kfranson wrote:
Quote:
I don't know abut you guys but I choose immediately B here. If you choose E, then you would have more workers last year and this is corrobarates the argument that the goals were not reached. Since more people divided by the same waste reduces the waste per worker on paper.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what E is saying, but if you choose E, then you WILL NOT have significantly more workers last year versus 1994, which is exactly what you need to know before you can say the goal is being met.

Am I getting the argument wrong here? I'm assuming the argument in this case is that the manufacturer is meeting its goal b/c of the per production worker waste being reduced from 90 to 40, this means nothing unless you know something about the number of workers and more specifically you need to know that the number of workers last year was similar to that of 1994 (call it X). Then you have 90*X pounds of waste in '94 and 40*X pounds of waste last year and you can say the manuf is meeting its goal. But you need statement E to do this.

Let me know what I'm missing here, GMAT is in two days and CR is a weak point for me.

Thanks for the discussion.

You say that we need to know the number of workers in this year and in last year. Yes, this is true.

However, what about the total amount of waste produced while making passenger-jets?
_________________

Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn !

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 39

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

Location: Houston

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2005, 21:43
Quote:
However, what about the total amount of waste produced while making passenger-jets?

Gamjatang, thanks for the response on this one, I'm still struggling...

Isn't this simply 90 times the number of workers for 1994 and 40 times the number of workers for last year? I'm assuming these are the workers that are working on the jets and creating the waste. It doesn't really matter how many they make.

However, I see your point in a businesss sense in that you don't want to make a lot of waste per jet as that would be inefficient (i.e. waste was down last year simply b/c say they only made 1 jet versus 10 in 1994). But the stem simply says the goal is total waste reduction, not waste/jet reduction.

Let me know where I'm going wrong, the goal is total waste reduction right? Not waste per jet?

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

VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1480

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2005, 09:06
how do we know that the planes, which were produced, were actually used ? imo E) is better ? if we negate E), the conclusion of the author would fall apart ! that makes E) the assumption, otheriwse the goal would not have been reached !
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 16 Oct 2005
Posts: 27

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

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2005, 09:28
christoph wrote:
how do we know that the planes, which were produced, were actually used ? imo E) is better ? if we negate E), the conclusion of the author would fall apart ! that makes E) the assumption, otheriwse the goal would not have been reached !

With B, it's confirmed that the number of passenger-jets produced in both the years hasn't changed. However, it doesn't convey whether no. of production workers working on the jets have increased in both the years (getting the answer to this is the key). If in both the years, 100 jets are produced, and in 1994 there were 10 workers working, the waste generated by them would be definitely more than the waste generated when 20 workers are given the job.

With E, we know that the number of workers working hasn't significantly increased. Which is what we need.. Please help me if I'm wrong..

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

VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1480

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2005, 09:43
strange wrote:
christoph wrote:
how do we know that the planes, which were produced, were actually used ? imo E) is better ? if we negate E), the conclusion of the author would fall apart ! that makes E) the assumption, otheriwse the goal would not have been reached !

With B, it's confirmed that the number of passenger-jets produced in both the years hasn't changed. However, it doesn't convey whether no. of production workers working on the jets have increased in both the years (getting the answer to this is the key). If in both the years, 100 jets are produced, and in 1994 there were 10 workers working, the waste generated by them would be definitely more than the waste generated when 20 workers are given the job.

With E, we know that the number of workers working hasn't significantly increased. Which is what we need.. Please help me if I'm wrong..

what if the number of jets has changed ? how do we know that these jets are actually used ? if we would know that the jets are used, then its ok to assume that the overall waste increased ! but thats only my point of view ! the official OA, as stated above, is B !
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 984

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 0

Location: South Korea

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2005, 10:04
christoph wrote:
strange wrote:
christoph wrote:
how do we know that the planes, which were produced, were actually used ? imo E) is better ? if we negate E), the conclusion of the author would fall apart ! that makes E) the assumption, otheriwse the goal would not have been reached !

With B, it's confirmed that the number of passenger-jets produced in both the years hasn't changed. However, it doesn't convey whether no. of production workers working on the jets have increased in both the years (getting the answer to this is the key). If in both the years, 100 jets are produced, and in 1994 there were 10 workers working, the waste generated by them would be definitely more than the waste generated when 20 workers are given the job.

With E, we know that the number of workers working hasn't significantly increased. Which is what we need.. Please help me if I'm wrong..

what if the number of jets has changed ? how do we know that these jets are actually used ? if we would know that the jets are used, then its ok to assume that the overall waste increased ! but thats only my point of view ! the official OA, as stated above, is B !

I did not post OA yet.
Actually, I do not have OA nor OE for this one.
(Sorry for all those who want a definite fixed answer.)

I thought (B) would be better than (E), but now I am confused.
_________________

Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn !

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 39

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

Location: Houston

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2005, 10:58
Quote:
what if the number of jets has changed ? how do we know that these jets are actually used ? if we would know that the jets are used, then its ok to assume that the overall waste increased ! but thats only my point of view ! the official OA, as stated above, is B !

Why should we care about the number of jets or if they were used. The waste comes from the manufacturing of them not the use of them if I understand the question correctly.

The equation for waste produced is simply 90 * number of workers in 1994 and 40 * number of workers last year. All we need is some info on the number of workers, it doesn't matter how many jets they made. For example, if 2 workers made 50 jets and produced 40 pounds of waste, then there would have 20 pounds of waste per worker and 20*2 = 40 pounds of waste, the # of jets doesn't even come into play when we are given a number for waste/worker.

So say 4 workers made 600,000 jets and produced 100 pounds of waste, same thing, 25 pounds per worker*4 = 100, no info about the 600,000 jets is necessary.

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

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1700

Kudos [?]: 473 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2005, 11:27
http://www.gmatclub.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=20258
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 473 [0], given: 0

09 Dec 2005, 11:27
Display posts from previous: Sort by