It is currently 28 Jun 2017, 17:21

Close

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
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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In response to mounting public concern, an airplane

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 298
In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Apr 2009, 03:55
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

66% (04:41) correct 34% (01:41) wrong based on 1674 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In response to mounting public 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

"CEO in making"

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 145
Schools: Chicago Booth 2011
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Apr 2009, 20:57
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.

Note the part in bold, we are interested in the TOTAL yearly amount of hazardous waste generated. How this is achieved is irrelevant.

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

I will only analyze the two potential answers in contention, since the other three have been addressed.

B. At least as many passenger jets were produced by the division last year as had
been produced in 1994.

Not relevant. How do you relate number of jets produced to total amount of hazardous waste generated? Maybe I'm producing less jets, but each new jet produces much more hazardous waste. Then I'm still not meeting my target.

E. The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not
significantly less in 1994 than it was last year.

Completely relevant because we can use the total number of production workers to calculate the total volume of hazardous waste. The only way to fairly compare 90 lbs of waste per worker and 40 lbs of waste per worker is to assume the number of workers are similar. Total volume of waste generated in 1994 = 90 x no. of workers in 1994. Total volume of waste generated last year = 40 x no. of workers last year. If you want the comparison to be valid, then the no. of workers in 1994 and last year cannot be too different. Hence, this is the assumption.
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 173
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Oct 2010, 22:29
1
This post received
KUDOS
I had gone for D too.

Quote:
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.


The above argument is based on the number of production workers. So I suppose we should choose an answer which counts the number of production workers and not the amount of nonhazardous waste/ no.of passenger jets/ average weekly hours of a single worker.

Only E does that.
_________________

Give [highlight]KUDOS [/highlight] if you like my post.

Always do things which make you feel ALIVE!!!

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 124
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Oct 2010, 22:24
1
This post received
KUDOS
I went for E straight...since we are interested in total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated by its passenger-jet division and the premise given is in terms of waste generated per production worker...We can straight forward see the gap in which the no of persons which will effect the total output are assumed to be constant/same by the author.So only option E address this gap.


Also option D takes into consideration the no of hrs per week which will in no way affect the output/person as no such relation is mentioned anywhere in the passage.

Hope its clear!!!
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 85
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Oct 2010, 13:00
1
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
metallicafan wrote:
In response to mounting public 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.

Why not this option?
[Reveal] Spoiler:
D


OA is


For me, E is the best and only answer.
This is a statistical question and author has related the per worker quantity to total produced quantity by the manyfacturer. So to stand the conclusion valid, there has to be an assumption that the number of worker has not got changed drastically.
Because if the number of workers have got increased significantly, even if the per worker waste production has decreased, the total waste produced by the company will be much higher and in that case the author's conclusion wont stand valid
2 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 426
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Oct 2010, 20:53
2
This post received
KUDOS
rockjock wrote:
hey i got E as the ans but was really confused between B and E. Can anyone explain why its not B

hi Rock ..
If you go with B you are assuming that production of waste is directly proportional to number of jets produced ...However this assumption is not substantiated in the argument ( not even mentioned)....

waster per worker ( as per the question ) ==
total waste/ number of workers ...( and not number of jets produced / number of workers )

i picked E
regards
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1380
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2011, 21:54
prephased the answer correctly....
Also,
on negating E, it destroys the entire argument
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 250
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2012, 09:00
1
This post received
KUDOS
Initially I went with D. After seeing the OA as E, I spent lot of time understanding this and came up with the following reasoning.

There are 3 possibilities why the amount of hazardous waste per worker came down:

1. Company produced less no. of planes
2. Company hired more no. of employees.
3. Company followed the new process.

As the question is asking about the assumption, we need to take the conclusion for granted, which means the reason for the reduction in the waste per worker is improvement in the process.

Now this improvement in the process also can happen in 3 situations:
1. Process improved at the time when company produced more no. of planes
2. Process improved at the time when company hired less no of employees
3. Process improved when company maintained counts of employees and produced planes are constant.
Note: we can ignore counter cases like producing less no. of planes and hiring more no of employees because in those cases, even if the process is not improved, there is a high chance that amount of waste per worker comes down.

Now in answer choices...

B comes as a contender for case 1. But it fails when we go for the extreme case (B says at least same no. of planes were produced. In the worst case, it could have produced high no. of planes. In such a case, still take the conclusion for granted, we should have a substantial information in the argument but that is missing)

E comes as a contender for case 2. Even in the worst case it stands. (worst case implies no. of employees in 1994 and now is same and it clearly tells that the conclusion is correct.)

D also comes as a contender, but we can not evaluate with the given info as we did in B & E.
_________________

-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 250
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2012, 10:03
gmatprep09 wrote:
I also agree with B.


I have posted my analysis in another thread:
in-response-to-mounting-public-concern-an-airplane-102844.html#p1029503
_________________

-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Employed
Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Posts: 99
Location: Pakistan
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.2
WE: Business Development (Internet and New Media)
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2012, 19:58
Has to be E. It is the only option that logically addresses the "Total amount of Hazardous waste" since total is waste per worker x no of workers !
If the workers have significantly increased, halving the production waste would be a false claim.
_________________

"Nowadays, people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing." Oscar Wilde

3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 56
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Feb 2012, 03:30
3
This post received
KUDOS
metallicafan wrote:
In response to mounting public 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.


conclusion : charges that the manufacturer's program has not met its goal are false
premise :the division's hazardous waste output was 90 pounds per production worker; last year it was 40 pounds per production worker
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.

hazardous waste output per production worker = total amount of hazardous waste/ total number of people

so probable assumptions could be

1. total number of people has remain constant and total amt of hazardous waste is reduced to half .


now lets have a look at the options :

a)A. The amount of nonhazardous waste generated each year by the passenger-jet division has not increased significantly since 1994. company is planning to reduce the total amt of mat by half, however from this statement we could only ascertain that amt has not risen significantly. may be no of people have also halved n tht is the reason for reduction frm 0.9 to 0.4.

B. At least as many passenger jets were produced by the division last year as had been produced in 1994. out of scope... we are taking about hazardous waste amount per pessenger .... same number of jet does not let us ascertain that ratio could have come down. Probably same no of units produce more hazardous material

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. out of scope we are only taking abt hazardous material reduction by 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. again we are not concerned abt no of hr each workers put in. only parameter tht could influence
hazardous waste amount per passenger is either no of people or total amt

E. The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not significantly less in 1994 than it was last year. hazardous waste amount per passenger from 0.9 to 0.4 , with total no remaining constant translate to reduction in more thn half of hazardous waste amount . hence correct answer
1 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
B
Status: Top MBA Admissions Consultant
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1254
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: 1540 Q800 V740
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Apr 2012, 01:21
1
This post received
KUDOS
The question says that the airplane manufacturer reduced the hazardous waste output from 90 tonnes/worker to 40 tonnes/worker. How can this ratio (tonnes/worker) be decreased? It can be decreased if the actual emissions decrease but the number of workers remain the same or decreases (i.e. the numerator decreases in greater proportion to the denominator). Alternatively, it can be decreased if the number of workers goes up, but the emissions stay the same or increase less in proportion to the increase in the number of workers (i.e. the denominator increases in greater proportion to the numerator).

In the first case (emissions going down), the airline manufacturer would have actually reduced emissions. In the second (number of employees going up), the ratio would decrease without the emissions necessarily going down. Therefore, for this to represent a true decrease in emissions, we will have to assume that the number of employees did not go up.

Option (E) expresses this most clearly and is therefore the best choice.
_________________

GyanOne | Top MBA Rankings and MBA Admissions Blog

Top MBA Admissions Consulting | Top MiM Admissions Consulting

Premium MBA Essay Review|Best MBA Interview Preparation|Exclusive GMAT coaching

Get a FREE Detailed MBA Profile Evaluation | Call us now +91 98998 31738

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2011
Posts: 124
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Apr 2013, 13:45
1
This post received
KUDOS
D is irrelevant,as the stats. given are X pounds per production worker.The number of hours spent are irrelevant and so the answer is E.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 277
GMAT 1: 620 Q44 V31
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 3: 610 Q47 V28
GMAT 4: 700 Q50 V34
GMAT 5: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 6: 690 Q48 V35
GMAT 7: 750 Q49 V42
GMAT 8: 730 Q50 V39
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Apr 2014, 16:21
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.

Wrong: nonhazardous waste is irrelevant.

B. At least as many passenger jets were produced by the division last year as had been produced in 1994.

Wrong:
Number of passenger jets is irrelevant

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.

Wrong:
Other divisions are out of scope.

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.

Wrong: Weekly hours is irrelevant.

E. The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not significantly less in 1994 than it was last year.
Correct:
If the number of workers has increased and the total waste remained the same, then the waste per person would decrease, but the total waste would remain the same.
Math Forum Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1251
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Sep 2016, 06:58
In response to mounting public 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.

Type - assumption
Boil it down - Waste output per worker has decreased from 90 to 40 . Hence, charges that manufacturer has not met its goal are false.
Pre-thinking -
Amount of water per worker has gone down by over 50%
- decrease in pounds of waste
- increase in number of workers
If the number of workers has increased from 1994 till last year , then argument will fall apart


E. The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not significantly less in 1994 than it was last year. Correct
Answer E
_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 05 Dec 2016
Posts: 131
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Apr 2017, 02:32
1
This post received
KUDOS
The only assumption that justifies the conclusion is that total number of workers hasn't substantially changed since we're talking about the waste per worker:
1994:
№ of W = 100
Waste/worker = 90
Total waste = 9000
nowdays:
№ of W = 225
Waste/worker = 40
Total waste = 9000

So, author's point to be valid, we need to seek for assumption that the number of workers has retained at roughly the same level as it was in 1994.
Answer E gives us that lacking assumption, and when negated it utterly shutters the conclusion to pieces.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 374
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Premium Member
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jun 2017, 11:32
this is a common technique in kaplan 800. The technique is exploited to attack questions that contain ratio and amounts. The questions surely will vary, hence, technique should also be used flexibly. Here, ones should keep eyes on the number of workers that may reduce the ratio.
Re: In response to mounting public concern, an airplane   [#permalink] 14 Jun 2017, 11:32
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Corporate responsibility.. avi1787 5 27 Apr 2017, 05:52
5 In response to concerns that professors at many prestigious universiti kvazar 3 01 Oct 2015, 07:57
17 Some public health advocates have become concerned that OptimusPrimea1 20 27 Aug 2016, 12:53
Whenever a major airplane accident occurs, there is a hitman4683v1 17 22 Aug 2012, 09:51
14 Experts publish their posts in the topic Governments have only one response to public criticism of gurpreet07 17 04 May 2017, 18:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In response to mounting public concern, an airplane

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


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.