goaltop30mba wrote:
Hi Experts I have a doubt
GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo
AjiteshArun VeritasKarishmaI correctly narrowed it down to option A, BUT there is something about option A that I want clarity on. (i know i am not supposed to end sentences with a preposition - sentence correction mode active
)
The first line of the paragraph says "Last year the worldwide paper industry used
over twice as much fresh pulp (pulp made directly from raw plant fibers) as recycled pulp (pulp made from wastepaper)".... doesn't over twice mean more than double?
let us say that last year, 10 units of recycled pulp were used. So going by "over twice" part, greater than (not greater than or equal to) 20 units of fresh pulp must have been used. This means that in 2010, the amount of fresh pulp, as per the stimulus, will be "greater than [greater than 20]", and thus the amount of recycled pulp for 2010 will be "greater than or equal to [greater than 20]"
Now option A says " In 2010 the paper industry will use
at least twice as much recycled pulp as it did last year". By definition we know that at least basically means greater than or equal to. So this option is saying that if 10 units of recycled pulp was used the last year, then in 2010 20 units or more will be used. BUT with the information we have in the stimulus and as per my understanding of the statement/phrase - over twice as much, what option A is saying is not entirely true as shown with the numbers above in my previous paragraph. The amount of recycled fresh pulp that will be used in 2010 should be just "greater than", not "greater than or equal to [greater than 20-amount of fresh pulp used last year]". So what I am trying to say is that the "greater than part" is absolutely true without a doubt as per all the information that we have, but if I am right about my understand of the phrase "over twice" is correct, then saying that the amount of recycled pulp will be at least twice won't be correct as the "equal to" part of "greater than or equal to" hasn't been taken care of, even though the "greater than" part is absolutely fine.
so what am I missing ? is it the "as much" part of "more than twice as much" that makes the phrase "more than twice as much" mean greater than or equal to twice?
Hi
goaltop30mba,
1. Last year: F + R
1a. F ≥ 2R {"last year... twice as much
fresh pulp (F) as
recycled pulp (R)"}
2. By 2010: Fa + Ra
2a. Ra ≥ Fa {"by 2010 the industry will use at least as much recycled pulp (Ra) annually as it does fresh pulp (Fa)"}
2b. Fa > F {"by 2010... while using a greater quantity of fresh pulp (Fa) than it did last year (F)"}
3. The minimum value of F is 2R (from 1a). This means that Fa > 2R (because Fa > F).
4. The minimum value of Ra is Fa (from 2a). This means that
Ra > 2R.
Now for your question. Let's say that you made a prediction "last year", that Ra will be
more than or equal to 2R by 2010. Your prediction would be correct if:
5a. Ra = 2R
or5b. Ra > 2R
The actual outcome is, of course, 5b. But that doesn't mean that your prediction was not accurate. The only "fail" for your prediction would be Ra < 2R.
Also, don't worry about ending sentences with a preposition.
_________________