That the application of new technology can increase the productivity o

A from me..

if workers constant, and output doubled, then clearly volume doubled...

u cant infer any other from the argument..

Production = average output * no. of miners

Therefore, if no. of miners is constant, then:

2*production = 2*average output * no. of miners

Answer = A

X: increase in technology applications for mines
Y: increase in mine production[coal output per miner]

The argument claims that X --> Y

we conclude that
Y --/--> X
Z --/--> Y where Z is any other variable or change

Answer (A) provides that Z, change in the number of miners, remained constant during the period. Because Y is a rate [coal output/ number of miners], then a change in the number of miners [Z] can cause a change in the coal output per miner [Y].

Thus, answer A provides that Z --/--> Y

The stem can be abbreviated to:

2* Total Coal Production in yr a / number of miners in yr a = T.C. P. in yr (a+5) / n in yr (a+5).

A is directly related to the stem. All other options are less related or irrelevant.

If Coal output per miner in Tribnia is doubled what it was five years ago. Then productively per person has doubled.

IMO Choice A “If the number of miners working in Tribnian coal mines has remained constant in the past five years, Tribnia’s total coal production has doubled in that period of time” describes the situation.

That the application of new technology can increase the productivity of existing coal mines is demonstrated by the case of Tribnia’s coal industry. Coal output per miner in Tribnia is double what it was five years ago, even though no new mines have opened.

Which of the following can be properly concluded from the statement about coal output per miner in the passage?
A. If the number of miners working in Tribnian coal mines has remained constant in the past five years, Tribnia’s total coal production has doubled in that period of time.
B. Any individual Tribnian coal mine that achieved an increase in overall output in the past five years has also experienced an increase in output per miner.
C. If any new coal mines had opened in Tribnia in the past five years, then the increase in output per miner would have been even greater than it actually was.
D. If any individual Tribnian coal mine has not increased its output per miner in the past five years, then that mine’s overall output has declined or remained constant.
E. In Tribnia the cost of producing a given quantity of coal has declined over the past five years.


Pls. explain...

After reading this question one would think *May be the employee(miner) strength should have increased.So there is a increase in the Coal(This actually can be one of the reason for the increase in Coal production..

So to draw a conclusion(that supports ""new technology increased the productivity"" one should eliminate the alternate cause mentioned above.

I Think A does it well and concludes... Hope im correct

Good question.
A

I went by process of elimination from bottom up. If the production rate per miner has doubled in the past five years, the production per miner would be two-folds in five years. Only necessary condition is that everything else remain the same i.e. no change in number of miners or no new places are adding to the output.

D and B look suspect, but evaluating A is better and quicker and seems good enough after some analysis.

Tough one.

Selected D first but A looks the correct one.
Even I thiught for A but I dont know why I moved away from it and marked D.

Couldn't get that .. can you please explain again.




I thought its because of technology

I'm with A. B and D discuss individual coal mines and what their impact would be if those variables changed - out of scope. E discusses costs - out of scope. C - just because a new mine opened does not mean there would be greater productivity as a whole. The new mine could very well be a wasted venture, and could drag down output per miner.

Dear RGM - It's a great analysis you've shown - only if you could also tell how did you so definitively conclude that because B and D were discussing INDIVIDUAL coal mines hence they were out of scope?

I considered them as out of scope just because the premise does not say anything about the individual coal mines.

B states - "Any individual Tribnian coal mine that achieved an increase in overall output in the past five years has also experienced an increase in output per miner." One case might be that a particular mine decided to increase manpower to increase yield. If this is the case, then there is no increase in output per miner. The premise did not say that the number of workers remained constant for all individual mines.

D states - "If any individual Tribnian coal mine has not increased its output per miner in the past five years, then that mine’s overall output has declined or remained constant." This is like the reverse of B. If the premise said that the number of workers remained constant for all individual mines, we can conclude that if the output per miner decreased, the overall output decreased for that mine.

Some may not agree with my reasoning, but that's how it seemed to me at the time.

Can someone tell how to eliminate "D" ?
If any individual Tribnian coal mine has not increased its output per miner in the
past five years, then that mine’s overall output has declined or remained
constant."

This has to be true as number of miners has remained constant...

I will give you a simple analogy, try and relate that to the problem at hand

I got wet, even though it dint rain.

Now think what it concludes
1. I got wet due to something else, other than rain ( I DID NOT GET WET DUE TO RAIN )
OR
2. If it rained I would have got wet -- can you really conclude this ? Will this happen 100% of times that WHEVENER it rains you will get wet ?

My example doesnt even talk about raining, can we still conclude something which is not given in the text ?

On the same lines
production / miner improved, even though new start ups dint come up

CONCLUSION -- production / miner DID NOT / WOULD NOT HAVE IMPROVE(D) DUE TO NEW START UPS IT IMPROVED DUE TO TECHNOLOGY

does it make sense ?

Theoretically C could be possible, but there is nothing in the argument that supports this possibility.

That the application of new technology can increase the productivity of existing coal mines is demonstrated by the case of Tribnia’s coal industry. Coal output per miner in Tribnia is double what it was five years ago, even though no new mines have opened.
\(\frac{C o 5yrs ago}{N5 yrs ago}\) = \(2*\frac{C o now}{Nnow}\)
Draw a Conclusion: For such questions, we should not assume anything other than what is given in the premises.
A. If the number of miners working in Tribnian coal mines has remained constant in the past five years, Tribnia’s total coal production has doubled in that period of time. Only option that can be logically inferred without any assumptions.
B. Any individual Tribnian coal mine that achieved an increase in overall output in the past five years has also experienced an increase in output per miner. Out of Scope. Nothing about individual coal mines is mentioned.
C. If any new coal mines had opened in Tribnia in the past five years, then the increase in output per miner would have been even greater than it actually was.Further assumption required.Out
D. If any individual Tribnian coal mine has not increased its output per miner in the past five years, then that mine’s overall output has declined or remained constant. It may be possible that the number of workers has declined. Out.
E. In Tribnia the cost of producing a given quantity of coal has declined over the past five years. Out of Scope. Nothing about price mentioned.