BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions
Start free 5-day trial
Read 559 reviewsTarget Test Prep

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Airplane manufacturer

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:19 pm

by deepak115 » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:42 pm
Agreed OA should be E !
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 9:16 am

by shark » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:50 pm
[/quote]GMAT paper tests. Dont have OE.[/quote]

Sorry for my quesry earlier asking for OE. Thanks anyways.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 727
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:32 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 8 times

Re: Airplane manufacturer

by umaa » Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:48 am
crackgmat007 wrote:In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane manufacturer implemented a program
with the well-publicized goal of reducing by half the total yearly amount of hazardous
waste generated by its passenger-jet division. When the program began in 1994, the
division’s hazardous waste output was 90 pounds per production worker; last year it was
40 pounds per production worker. Clearly, therefore, charges that the manufacturer’s
program has not met its goal are false.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The amount of nonhazardous waste generated each year by the passenger-jet
division has not increased significantly since 1994.
B. At least as many passenger jets were produced by the division last year as had
been produced in 1994.
C. Since 1994, other divisions in the company have achieved reductions in hazardous
waste output that are at least equal to that achieved in the passenger-jet division.
D. The average number of weekly hours per production worker in the passenger-jet
division was not significantly greater last year than it was in 1994.
E. The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not
significantly less in 1994 than it was last year.

Pls provide reasons for your answers. OA to follow.
E is wrong because, If the number of production workers assigned to the passenger Jet division was not less - Means, it is equal or higher.

If its equal, it supports the conclusion. But if we assume that its higher than the p.w in 1994, it weakens the argument. Since we can assume two cases, it can't be a right answer.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:14 am
Thanked: 13 times

by ketkoag » Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:52 am
I feel B is better than E as stated by OA..
because If u don't assume B then the argument will totally fell apart and there is no sense in assuming E.. u have to assume B first and then u'll look for the denominator part..
it is a tricky question and i feel that it could be a 700+ difficulty question..this is as per my personal experience, i m not an expert though.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:02 pm
Thanked: 15 times

by life is a test » Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:14 am
Interesting but a poorly written question I think.

aim: reduce by half the total emissions

ratios given = total emissions/num of workers. We need to show that it is the total emissions causing the ratio to reduce and not the number of workers. |Using the negation technique to test the assumption, you get ans E as follows:

B says that number of jets produced in 2004 vs last yr are at least equal which means that the ratio drop was due to change is number of workers rather than total emissions which weakens the conclusion. Negate this --> number of jets produced last year is less last year than in 1994, i.e. ratio is lowered because total emissions are lowered which strengthens the conclusion.

E says that the number of workers were not significantly less in 1994 vs last yr. negate this --> If they were significantly more workers in 1994 vs last yr than 1994 ratio would be high and last yr ratio would appear low because of the difference in number of workers rather than a cut in emissions hence conclusion would not hold.

Hope this helps.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 amFollowed by: 1535 members
Thanked: 2256 times
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:14 am
i received a private message asking me to comment.

--

the answer to this problem should be (e).

the production company's GOAL was to lower the TOTAL AMOUNT of hazardous waste produced.

the EVIDENCE is stated in terms of the amount PER WORKER, not the total amount.

this is everything.

therefore, if we can find an answer choice that CONNECTS these two concepts (the total amount of hazardous waste and the amount of hazardous waste per worker), then that's the correct answer.

this is precisely what answer choice (e) does.

--

answer choice (b) is irrelevant, as we have no information about how much waste is produced PER JET - not now, not then, never.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:18 am
Thanked: 3 times

by srivas » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:18 am
In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane manufacturer implemented a program
with the well-publicized goal of reducing by half the total yearly amount of hazardous
waste generated by its passenger-jet division. When the program began in 1994, the
division�s hazardous waste output was 90 pounds per production worker; last year it was
40 pounds per production worker. Clearly, therefore, charges that the manufacturer�s
program has not met its goal are false.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The amount of nonhazardous waste generated each year by the passenger-jet
division has not increased significantly since 1994.
B. At least as many passenger jets were produced by the division last year as had
been produced in 1994.
C. Since 1994, other divisions in the company have achieved reductions in hazardous
waste output that are at least equal to that achieved in the passenger-jet division.
D. The average number of weekly hours per production worker in the passenger-jet
division was not significantly greater last year than it was in 1994.
E. The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not
significantly less in 1994 than it was last year

one can say the manufacturers met the goals when 'B' is true
Gmat710,, Hyd
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 amFollowed by: 1535 members
Thanked: 2256 times
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:25 am
srivas wrote: one can say the manufacturers met the goals when 'B' is true
not so. what connection do you see?

choice (b) is irrelevant to the stated goal.

the stated goal concerns the total output of manufacturing waste.
choice (b) has to do with the number of jets produced by the division. this has nothing to do with the output of manufacturing waste, and also does nothing to resolve the logic gap in the passage (i.e., the connection between total manufacturing waste and per-worker waste).

--

what connection do you see between choice (b) and the stated goal?

whatever it is, you're making WAY too many assumptions. remember that YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ASSUME ANYTHING THAT IS NOT STATED IN, OR A LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF, THE PASSAGE.
keep this in mind; it's the lens through which you must view ALL critical reasoning questions.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:38 pmFollowed by: 1 member

by stayingcalm » Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:31 pm
i initially chose E too. But i can see how B is probably better.

Conclusion is talking about total waste in that whole division. so its total = avg * num jets

if your jets are not the same you just cant compare.
also the wording for E is off. ANY change in num of workers would kill the ratio.. "not significantly less" will not work.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 amFollowed by: 1535 members
Thanked: 2256 times
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:21 am
stayingcalm wrote:i initially chose E too. But i can see how B is probably better.

Conclusion is talking about total waste in that whole division. so its total = avg * num jets

if your jets are not the same you just cant compare.
nope. incorrect. you CAN make the comparison, completely independent of the number of jets.

your reasoning would only work if there were some sort of average given PER JET.
no such average is given, so this is wrong.

the figures are given in TOTAL POUNDS PER PRODUCTION WORKER.
that's it.
they are NOT given in total pounds/jet, or in total pounds per production worker per jet.

therefore, the ONLY units that are relevant are the units that are USED in this statistic: POUNDS and # PRODUCTION WORKERS.
any other figures, such as the number of jets, are irrelevant.
the number of jets is no more relevant than the number of times that the workers go to the bathroom.

--

in general, when you have a CR problem that references actual statistics with units, like this, one, you can just look and see what units are present in the discussion.

really, it's that simple. (note that i didn't say "easy"; i said "simple".)
you cannot introduce the number of jets as a confounding factor, because the number of jets has absolutely nothing to do with ANYTHING in the problem statement.
nothing.

--

the indisputably correct answer is (e).
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:33 am

by kris77 » Sun May 15, 2016 3:45 pm
Guys can anyone give a decent reason why E is not right.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply