adkikani
GMATNinjaTwo GMATNinja generis VeritasPrepKarishmaIs below approach correct?
(Simplifying nos in Q stem)
Innovair: I
Say I spend $5 in training ground crews whereas the repair cost is $10
(for 35 planes), then D is a bit out of scope then even if we know that the
training costs includes wages earned by ground crew during training, we can
not establish any relationship with whether repairs will come down more exponnently
as Q asks us to.
adkikani, I think you are on the right track here...
The collisions cost Innovair $1,000,000 per year. If all collisions cost about the same, then cutting collisions in half should cut the cost in half (bringing it down to about $500,000).
The new training is going to cost $500,000 and, at best, it is going to cut collisions in half. If all collisions cost about the same, then that new training will only save $500,000 AT BEST. So why would we spend $500,000 on training if it will only save us $500,000 or less? At best, we'll break even, and we might even lose money!
As for choice (D), even though the wages are part of that $500,000 training expense, we'll have the same problem if the training is only going to save us $500,000 or less.
But what if all collisions are not created equal? In other words, what if some kinds of collisions are more costly than others? In that case, if we can eliminate most of THOSE kinds of costly collisions, then cutting collisions by half might save substantially more than $500,000.
If Innovair focuses its training on avoiding those kinds of costly collisions, they can expect to save substantially more than $500,000. So choice (C) is correct.