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

 It is currently 25 May 2017, 19:09

### 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

# That the application of new technology can increase the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 391
Location: Boston, MA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 105 [0], given: 0

That the application of new technology can increase the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2006, 20:16
13
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

68% (02:04) correct 32% (01:24) wrong based on 1021 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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 ouput 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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1167
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 157 [1] , given: 0

Re: CR - Coal Miners [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2006, 20:29
1
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I prefer A.

A. Very straight forward logic.

B. You can't deduce this, reversely based on the logic.

C. The question is not talking about NEW mines.

D and E are irrelevant.
SVP
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1557
Location: Ann Arbor
Schools: Ross '10
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 191 [10] , given: 1

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2006, 20:36
10
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Five Years ago,

Coal output per miner(x) = Total Coal Quantity(x)/Total no. of miners(x)

Today,

Coal output per miner(today)=2*Coal output per miner(x)
=2*Total Coal Quantity(x)/Total no. of miners(x)

Equating,

Total coal quantity(today)/Total no.of miners(today)=2*Total Coal Quantity(x)/Total no. of miners(x)

If Total no.of miners(today)= Total no.of miners(x), then
Total coal quantity(today) = 2*Total Coal Quantity(x)

This is the same as 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.

So, my pick is A.
_________________

My Profile/GMAT/MBA Story
http://www.gmatclub.com/forum/111-t59345

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 264
Location: California
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 206 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2006, 03:32
A from me..

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

u cant infer any other from the argument..
Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 76
Location: London
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [2] , given: 0

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2006, 09:10
2
KUDOS
Production = average output * no. of miners

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

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

Director
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 591
Location: Kuwait
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 291 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2006, 17:57
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
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Nov 2006
Posts: 349
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Coal Miners [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jan 2007, 16:05
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.

buckkitty wrote:
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 ouput 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.

Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 222
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 1

Re: CR - Coal Miners [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Nov 2009, 03:26
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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 322
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 92 [1] , given: 44

That the application of new technology can increase the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Mar 2010, 09:45
1
KUDOS
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...
Director
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 547
Followers: 3

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

### Show Tags

27 Mar 2010, 22:15
Is it A?
nsp007 wrote:
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...
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 322
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 44

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2010, 01:13
Yes, it is A. But can you pls. explain...
BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 593
GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Followers: 38

Kudos [?]: 354 [0], given: 412

### Show Tags

02 Apr 2010, 20:30
Quote:
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.

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
Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 244
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 16

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2010, 07:15
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.
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 943
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 77

Kudos [?]: 1329 [0], given: 40

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2010, 01:41
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.
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Manager
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 224
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 185 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2010, 05:37
can someone explain why C is wrong?
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 461
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2010, 08:29
RaviChandra wrote:
Quote:
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.

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

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

Quote:

After reading this question one would think *May be the employee(miner) strength should have increased.

I thought its because of technology
_________________

GGG (Gym / GMAT / Girl) -- Be Serious

Its your duty to post OA afterwards; some one must be waiting for that...

Manager
Joined: 04 Feb 2010
Posts: 198
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2010, 08:54
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.
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1457
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2010, 09:25
RGM wrote:
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?
Manager
Joined: 04 Feb 2010
Posts: 198
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2010, 09:39
dwivedys wrote:
RGM wrote:
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.
Manager
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 193
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [1] , given: 11

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2010, 12:31
1
KUDOS
RGM wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
RGM wrote:

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.

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

Agreed!
I literally fell for B.
A is a better choice than B.
Re: Tribnian coal mines   [#permalink] 08 Jul 2010, 12:31

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 30 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
11 People who have political power tend to see new technologies 25 31 Dec 2016, 04:24
9 The pace of new technology brings a constant stream of new 8 30 Sep 2015, 18:37
1 The pace of new technology brings a constant stream of new 15 31 Jul 2015, 02:52
8 The pace of new technology brings a constant stream of new 17 31 Jul 2015, 02:49
People who have political power tend to see new technologies 0 16 May 2016, 19:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by