Critical Reasoning

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, between B and E.

I dropped B because from the number of planes produced we cannot know the number of pounds of waste produced or the number of workers assigned to it.

the rest of the options are out of scope.

I go for E.

I think the key lies in the following statement "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". For this to be true, the number of workers should not have increased. If the number of workers has increased then this is a specious assertion (because by increasing the number of workers you can decrease the pounds of production per worker) -

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.

its probably e...but i'm going to go on a limb with b. assumptions are all about identifying other factors that may cause a result and negating them as possibilities to advance your claim. so one assumption is that it wasn't the fact that there were less more jets in 1994 than now, generating waste output. Hmmm...as i'm writing...i'm thinking who says more jets = more waste output...That's an assumption i'm making. yeah E.

what's oa?

I would go with - E.

If you negate E, argument falls flat.

Number of workers in 1994 - 10 - waste per worker 90
Number of workers last year - 50 - waste per worker 40

therefore the amount of waste has not decreased, the number of production workers has increased.

Mehravikas

Can you explain your calculation in more detail?

mehravikas wrote:I would go with - E.

Number of workers in 1994 - 10 - waste per worker 90
Number of workers last year - 50 - waste per worker 40

Please don't go by exact number here. The argument relies on the waste per production worker.

Question is: What if the number of workers has increased considerably. If the number of workers has increased, then amount of waste per production worker would be less. so the claim falls flat if we know for sure that the number of production workers has increased and there is no reduction in the H waste.

ogbeni wrote:Mehravikas

Can you explain your calculation in more detail?

mehravikas wrote:I would go with - E.

Number of workers in 1994 - 10 - waste per worker 90
Number of workers last year - 50 - waste per worker 40

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.

here we can fill the logic gap.
option E fulfills the situation by producing a statstical data.here the amount of waste comparison will be justified, if the no. of workers remain the same.
division’s hazardous waste output was 90 pounds per production worker; last year it was 40 pounds per production worker
Please post the OA.

I go for E.

OA is B

Since the production wastage will be proportional to the number of jet engines that are produced, IMO B fills the gap.

B because

In 1994, lets assume 9 Jets were made, then 90/9 = 10 Lbs/Jet of waste was generated.
If Last Year, only 4 instead of 9 were made then 40/4 = 10 Lbs/ Jet of waste was generated.


Thus, No change in Lbs/ Jet of waste....Program was a failure !

What is the source of this question? Can you post the OE?

crackgmat007 wrote:OA is B

Since the production wastage will be proportional to the number of jet engines that are produced, IMO B fills the gap.

Wastage is calculated in terms of the amount of waste per production worker.

E can also prove that program was a failure...

deepak115 wrote:B because

In 1994, lets assume 9 Jets were made, then 90/9 = 10 Lbs/Jet of waste was generated.
If Last Year, only 4 instead of 9 were made then 40/4 = 10 Lbs/ Jet of waste was generated.


Thus, No change in Lbs/ Jet of waste....Program was a failure !

mehravikas wrote:What is the source of this question? Can you post the OE?

crackgmat007 wrote:OA is B

Since the production wastage will be proportional to the number of jet engines that are produced, IMO B fills the gap.

GMAT paper tests. Dont have OE.

Hi crackgmat007,

Will you post the OE explaining why B is correct?

I still feel that E is a better option but I could be wrong. So I want to know the exaplanation for why B is a better option. Thanks.