Last visit was: 14 Jul 2025, 06:04 It is currently 14 Jul 2025, 06:04
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
gmat1393
User avatar
Share GMAT Experience Moderator
Joined: 25 Apr 2018
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 644
Own Kudos:
2,486
 [24]
Given Kudos: 199
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Products:
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Posts: 644
Kudos: 2,486
 [24]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
23
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
rishikamalviya
Joined: 24 Feb 2021
Last visit: 04 Jul 2021
Posts: 1
Own Kudos:
1
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 1
Kudos: 1
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 13 Jul 2025
Posts: 102,569
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 98,178
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 102,569
Kudos: 741,249
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
TusharViv
Joined: 01 Jan 2021
Last visit: 22 Dec 2021
Posts: 18
Own Kudos:
16
 [4]
Given Kudos: 172
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
Posts: 18
Kudos: 16
 [4]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I got it wrong initially but of course A makes sense. The manager is saying that the program is useless because the waste per person increased

But this increase could be due to there being a lot fewer people so the program might have reduced the overall waste, but the waste per person still increased even though the program worked. So it is assumed that the number of people isn't changing, just the waste per person is.
User avatar
arya251294
Joined: 03 Jan 2019
Last visit: 16 Mar 2024
Posts: 190
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 368
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Posts: 190
Kudos: 54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmat1393
The management of a shoe manufacturing company wants to lower the cost of production by reducing wastage in its manufacturing process. The management believes that the wastage can be reduced substantially through change in quality control program. However, according to a middle level manager, since the waste level per employee has increased significantly after certain changes were made to the program three years ago, making further changes will not bring any benefit.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the manager’s argument depends?

A. The number of employees assigned to the manufacturing department was not significantly higher three years ago than it is at present.
B. The quantity of wastage has not decreased in last 3 years.
C. The company profitability has not declined in the last three years.
D. The change in quality control program may adversely affect the volume of waste per employee.
E. The quality of shoes manufactured by the company has remained the same as it was 3 years ago.
Don't you thing if the option "A" were - "The number of employees assigned to the manufacturing department was not significantly lower three years ago that it is at present." then it would have made more sense ?

GMATNinja please help
avatar
ZulfiquarA
Joined: 06 Apr 2021
Last visit: 11 Jun 2025
Posts: 65
Own Kudos:
39
 [1]
Given Kudos: 38
Posts: 65
Kudos: 39
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The question is hard because I still don't understand why the option A is right. I was in favour of the option B.
avatar
Gmattired
Joined: 08 May 2020
Last visit: 28 May 2023
Posts: 41
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 41
Kudos: 6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Since this is a question of assumption. So when we take option D and use negation wont it actually distort the conclusion and hence would be the right option? (Conclusion being "making further changes will not bring any benefit" )
avatar
LeoniePitu02
Joined: 07 Mar 2021
Last visit: 24 Jul 2021
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 5
GMAT 1: 550 Q34 V31
GMAT 1: 550 Q34 V31
Posts: 4
Kudos: 1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmat1393
The management of a shoe manufacturing company wants to lower the cost of production by reducing wastage in its manufacturing process. The management believes that the wastage can be reduced substantially through change in quality control program. However, according to a middle level manager, since the waste level per employee has increased significantly after certain changes were made to the program three years ago, making further changes will not bring any benefit.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the manager’s argument depends?

A. The number of employees assigned to the manufacturing department was not significantly higher three years ago than it is at present.
B. The quantity of wastage has not decreased in last 3 years.
C. The company profitability has not declined in the last three years.
D. The change in quality control program may adversely affect the volume of waste per employee.
E. The quality of shoes manufactured by the company has remained the same as it was 3 years ago.


Let me try to explain my thinking process here - I chose A.

The conclusion here is that changing the quality control program will not bring any benefit since it increased the waste level per employee after certain changes were made to the program three years ago.

A. The number of employees assigned to the manufacturing department was not significantly higher three years ago than it is at present. - CORRECT - try to negate; if the number of employees was significantly higher three years ago, then of course the waste level per employee has increased since there are fewer employees to distribute the waste on. The manager assumes that the number of employees is still the same and therefore, there was no benefit in changing the quality control program
B. The quantity of wastage has not decreased in last 3 years. - this doesn't impact the argument. even it has decreased, maybe the management wants to lower it anyway
C. The company profitability has not declined in the last three years. - out of scope; profitability doesn't help us here
D. The change in quality control program may adversely affect the volume of waste per employee. - the manager actually states that changing the quality control program would not provide any benefit at all
E. The quality of shoes manufactured by the company has remained the same as it was 3 years ago. - out of scope

Hope that helps :-)
User avatar
Raman109
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 16 Jun 2025
Posts: 811
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 33
Products:
Posts: 811
Kudos: 143
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Understanding the argument -
The management of a shoe manufacturing company wants to lower the cost of production by reducing wastage in its manufacturing process. - Premise.

Goal - Lower the cost of production
Plan - Reduce wastage in its production.

The management believes that the wastage can be reduced substantially through change in quality control program. - Opinion.

However, according to a middle level manager, since the waste level per employee has increased significantly after certain changes were made to the program three years ago, making further changes will not bring any benefit. - Contrast + supporting premise + conclusion.

Option Elimination -

Two missing premises or minimum conditions can help middle-level managers conclude to hold.
1. "certain changes" made were the best possible attempt the company could make. What if, those were some half-hearted attempts, and we compare apples vs. oranges?
2. He goes to the level of waste per employee. What if the base has been reduced while the numerators stay the same? This will also increase the waste per employee. Yes.

A. The number of employees assigned to the manufacturing department was not significantly higher three years ago than it is at present. - Say the total waste is 100 units and the number of employees three years ago was 50. Now, while the total waste has remained the same, the number of employees is 10. So total waste per employee has increased from 2 units to 5 units. But has the total waste increased? No. So, this is a solid missing premise that can help the manager's level conclusion hold.

B. The quantity of wastage has not decreased in last 3 years. - At best, a weakener.

C. The company profitability has not declined in the last three years. - Is the middle-level manager even talking about the profitability? No. Out of scope.

D. The change in quality control program may adversely affect the volume of waste per employee. - This is not the right way to strengthen. It's as if someone says 20 units of vitamin D in the blood is the maximum limit one needs to get the best bone benefit. And to strengthen, someone says, beyond 20 has adverse effects. No, maybe more than 20 has no additional benefit; it's just a waste. It doesn't necessarily need to be some negative effect. Likewise, in this case, the manager says making further changes will not bring any additional benefit. We don't need to say that making further changes is detrimental. That is a poor way of strengthening one's argument.

E. The quality of shoes manufactured by the company has remained the same as it was 3 years ago. - Out of scope.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7349 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts