NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 26 Apr 2024, 03:21 It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 03:21
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

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

User avatar
reply2spg
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 271
Own Kudos [?]: 3893 [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Send PM
It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink] New post   23 Feb 2009, 13:43
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Hide Show 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.

Please explain



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
User avatar
chalven
Intern
Intern
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 31
Own Kudos [?]: 1037 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink] New post   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.

Any comments guys.
User avatar
ritula
Director
Director
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 696
Own Kudos [?]: 2799 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink] New post   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
User avatar
tusharvk
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 119
Own Kudos [?]: 20 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Concentration: finance & strategy
Send PM
Re: It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink] New post   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.

Any comments guys.

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?
User avatar
nitya34
Director
Director
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 518
Own Kudos [?]: 3827 [0]
Given Kudos: 17
Send PM
Re: It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink] New post   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.

Any comments guys.

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?
User avatar
bigfernhead
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 524
Own Kudos [?]: 1850 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
GMAT 2: 670
Send PM
Re: It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink] New post   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.
User avatar
balajinaik
Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 9
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink] New post   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
User avatar
peraspera
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 83
Own Kudos [?]: 19 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink] New post   24 Feb 2009, 19:41
I think B is the strongest.
E could be interpreted differently, and could either support or weaken the argument.
User avatar
unplugged
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 309
Own Kudos [?]: 153 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Concentration: Strategy, International Business, Finance
Schools:Kellogg Class of 2012
 Q48  V36
Send PM
Re: It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink] New post   24 Feb 2009, 20:18
I'll go with B

Cheers,
Unplugged
User avatar
bigfernhead
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 524
Own Kudos [?]: 1850 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
GMAT 2: 670
Send PM
Re: It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink] New post   27 Feb 2009, 07:09
OA PLEASE.
avatar
kuldeep4gmat
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 11
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink] New post   25 Mar 2009, 00:50
IMO B
User avatar
ngoctraiden1905
Manager
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2008
Posts: 80
Own Kudos [?]: 98 [0]
Given Kudos: 8
Send PM
Re: It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink] New post   27 Oct 2009, 03:31
reply2spg 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.

(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.

Please explain

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.
User avatar
kairoshan
Manager
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2009
Posts: 61
Own Kudos [?]: 741 [0]
Given Kudos: 3
Send PM
Re: It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink] New post   27 Oct 2009, 12:13
looks like B only supports the conclusion. OA?



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the [#permalink]
27 Oct 2009, 12:13
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions