Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 25 May 2017, 19:54

### 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

# It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the

Author Message
Director
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 547
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 483 [0], given: 2

It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2009, 13:43
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

### HideShow timer Statistics

It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the leakage of minute amounts of dangerous chemicals into its plant. In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Hamilton Inc. would thereby avoid incurring three million dollars worth of damages, since currently Hamilton Inc. pays that amount annually in compensation for health problems said to be caused by the chemical fumes.

Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above?

(A) Companies similar to Hamilton Inc. also pay compensation for health damages caused by fumes.

(B) After leaky Hamilton Inc. equipment has been repaired, several years will elapse before that the equipment begins to leak again.

(C) Hamilton Inc. would need to raise their prices to consumers if it were to spend two million dollars in one year on repairs.

(D) The number of sick days Hamilton’s employees take can vary widely from year to year.

(E) Factory workers are more likely to be exposed to fumes while in Hamilton’s plant, but administrative staff files almost all of the claims for compensation said to be caused by the fumes.

Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 66
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2009, 16:35
It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the leakage of minute amounts of dangerous chemicals into its plant. In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Hamilton Inc. would thereby avoid incurring three million dollars worth of damages, since currently Hamilton Inc. pays that amount annually in compensation for health problems said to be caused by the chemical fumes.

Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above?

(A) Companies similar to Hamilton Inc. also pay compensation for health damages caused by fumes. -- Out of scope. We are only concerned about Hamilton.

(B) After leaky Hamilton Inc. equipment has been repaired, several years will elapse before that the equipment begins to leak again. -- This statement comes close to supporting the argument. If it takes several years before the equipment begins to leak, then Hamilton would be saving the money it pays towards compensation and still does not have to repair the equipment.
(C) Hamilton Inc. would need to raise their prices to consumers if it were to spend two million dollars in one year on repairs. -- Irrelevant. The argument is not about raising prices.

(D) The number of sick days Hamilton’s employees take can vary widely from year to year. -- Irrelevant. This statement does nothing to support the argument.

(E) Factory workers are more likely to be exposed to fumes while in Hamilton’s plant, but administrative staff files almost all of the claims for compensation said to be caused by the fumes. -- It does not matter who files the claims. We don't know to whom is Hamilton paying the compensation. It could be paying to the government.

VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1265
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 447 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2009, 08:28
yes i agree with chaven. Since the company pays an annual amount of 3 millions while the repair will cost 2 millions. The company will save in all these years.Ans shld be B
Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 238
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2009, 10:29
chalven wrote:
It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the leakage of minute amounts of dangerous chemicals into its plant. In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Hamilton Inc. would thereby avoid incurring three million dollars worth of damages, since currently Hamilton Inc. pays that amount annually in compensation for health problems said to be caused by the chemical fumes.

Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above?

(A) Companies similar to Hamilton Inc. also pay compensation for health damages caused by fumes. -- Out of scope. We are only concerned about Hamilton.

(B) After leaky Hamilton Inc. equipment has been repaired, several years will elapse before that the equipment begins to leak again. -- This statement comes close to supporting the argument. If it takes several years before the equipment begins to leak, then Hamilton would be saving the money it pays towards compensation and still does not have to repair the equipment.
(C) Hamilton Inc. would need to raise their prices to consumers if it were to spend two million dollars in one year on repairs. -- Irrelevant. The argument is not about raising prices.

(D) The number of sick days Hamilton’s employees take can vary widely from year to year. -- Irrelevant. This statement does nothing to support the argument.

(E) Factory workers are more likely to be exposed to fumes while in Hamilton’s plant, but administrative staff files almost all of the claims for compensation said to be caused by the fumes. -- It does not matter who files the claims. We don't know to whom is Hamilton paying the compensation. It could be paying to the government.

B is what was the most appropriate. I did not understand the argument made in the stem. Is it arguing for repairs to be made or against repairs to be made?
_________________

-----------------------
tusharvk

Director
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 900
Followers: 72

Kudos [?]: 622 [0], given: 17

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2009, 12:23
B has sense
what is this E option about?
OOS-out of Scope?
tusharvk wrote:
chalven wrote:
It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the leakage of minute amounts of dangerous chemicals into its plant. In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Hamilton Inc. would thereby avoid incurring three million dollars worth of damages, since currently Hamilton Inc. pays that amount annually in compensation for health problems said to be caused by the chemical fumes.

Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above?

(A) Companies similar to Hamilton Inc. also pay compensation for health damages caused by fumes. -- Out of scope. We are only concerned about Hamilton.

(B) After leaky Hamilton Inc. equipment has been repaired, several years will elapse before that the equipment begins to leak again. -- This statement comes close to supporting the argument. If it takes several years before the equipment begins to leak, then Hamilton would be saving the money it pays towards compensation and still does not have to repair the equipment.
(C) Hamilton Inc. would need to raise their prices to consumers if it were to spend two million dollars in one year on repairs. -- Irrelevant. The argument is not about raising prices.

(D) The number of sick days Hamilton’s employees take can vary widely from year to year. -- Irrelevant. This statement does nothing to support the argument.

(E) Factory workers are more likely to be exposed to fumes while in Hamilton’s plant, but administrative staff files almost all of the claims for compensation said to be caused by the fumes. -- It does not matter who files the claims. We don't know to whom is Hamilton paying the compensation. It could be paying to the government.

B is what was the most appropriate. I did not understand the argument made in the stem. Is it arguing for repairs to be made or against repairs to be made?

_________________

http://gmatclub.com/forum/math-polygons-87336.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/competition-for-the-best-gmat-error-log-template-86232.html

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 975
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 219 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2009, 12:48
I went with B which seemed the most logical, and then finally chose E.

(B) After leaky Hamilton Inc. equipment has been repaired, several years will elapse before that the equipment begins to leak again.

B is irrelevant since we're directly talking about incurring losses due to damages. We're not concerned what happens years down the row (though it's logical to think so)

(E) Factory workers are more likely to be exposed to fumes while in Hamilton’s plant, but administrative staff files almost all of the claims for compensation said to be caused by the fumes.

If the leak is fixed, factory workers (the people most likely to report) will stop claiming for damages. If so, the staff will stop processing these claims, thus yielding the savings.
Intern
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 31
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2009, 16:23
For me its a clear E

Premise: 2 Million to fix the leaks
Argument: 3 million savings from claims due to chemical fumes.

The gap is 1 million extra saving that should be coming from somewhere. Statement says identify a sitution which if true will fix this gap of 1 million.

only E gives the correct explanation that admistrative staff are filling other type of compensation as chemical fumes there by amounting to 3 million.

hope it helps
Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 242
Followers: 2

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

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2009, 19:41
I think B is the strongest.
E could be interpreted differently, and could either support or weaken the argument.
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 431
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2009, 20:18
I'll go with B

Cheers,
Unplugged
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 975
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 219 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

27 Feb 2009, 07:09
Intern
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 19
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

25 Mar 2009, 00:50
IMO B
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2008
Posts: 157
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2009, 03:31
It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the leakage of minute amounts of dangerous chemicals into its plant. In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Hamilton Inc. would thereby avoid incurring three million dollars worth of damages, since currently Hamilton Inc. pays that amount annually in compensation for health problems said to be caused by the chemical fumes.

Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above?

(A) Companies similar to Hamilton Inc. also pay compensation for health damages caused by fumes.

(B) After leaky Hamilton Inc. equipment has been repaired, several years will elapse before that the equipment begins to leak again.

(C) Hamilton Inc. would need to raise their prices to consumers if it were to spend two million dollars in one year on repairs.

(D) The number of sick days Hamilton’s employees take can vary widely from year to year.

(E) Factory workers are more likely to be exposed to fumes while in Hamilton’s plant, but administrative staff files almost all of the claims for compensation said to be caused by the fumes.

Notice that in the stem"In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Hamilton Inc. would thereby avoid incurring..." and "pays that amount annually" clearly show that B should be the OA because only several years after the equipment is repaired had the compensation occurred.
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2009
Posts: 122
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 153 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2009, 12:13
looks like B only supports the conclusion. OA?
Re: CR: Hamilton Inc   [#permalink] 27 Oct 2009, 12:13
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Jeanette: We must stop the overfishing of the Guantabe 14 17 Jan 2011, 14:26
The government should stop permitting tobacco companies to 4 07 Aug 2010, 12:43
Two years ago, the cost of the raw material used in a 6 11 Oct 2009, 19:42
1 Lightbox, Inc., owns almost all of the movie theaters in 8 13 Mar 2010, 13:35
3 There is no point in spending millions of dollars on 34 27 Jun 2008, 12:25
Display posts from previous: Sort by