Airplane manufacturer
-
umaa
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:32 pm
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:1 members
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
-
life is a test
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:02 pm
- Thanked: 15 times
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.
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.
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
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.
--
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
--
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
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
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
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
not so. what connection do you see?srivas wrote: one can say the manufacturers met the goals when 'B' is true
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
--
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
-
stayingcalm
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:38 pm
- Followed by:1 members
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.
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.
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
nope. incorrect. you CAN make the comparison, completely independent of the number of jets.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.
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
--
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
