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

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

Airplane manufacturer

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:57 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 15 times
GMAT Score:690
by crackgmat007 » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:50 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.

Pls provide reasons for your answers. OA to follow.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:59 amFollowed by: 1 member
Location: USA
Thanked: 13 times

by niraj_a » Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
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.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:50 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 10 times

by ogbeni » Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:21 am
:)

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) - :)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 2:47 am
Thanked: 12 times

Re: Airplane manufacturer

by shahdevine » Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:04 pm
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?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 amFollowed by: 1 member
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times

by mehravikas » Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:21 pm
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.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:50 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 10 times

by ogbeni » Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:27 pm
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
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 amFollowed by: 1 member
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times

by mehravikas » Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:36 pm
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
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:19 am
Thanked: 3 times
GMAT Score:650

Re: Airplane manufacturer

by vyomb » Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:31 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.
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.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 1:17 amFollowed by: 1 member
Location: Rourkela/Hyderabad
Thanked: 4 times

by sanp_l » Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:46 am
I go for E.
Sandy
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:57 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 15 times
GMAT Score:690

by crackgmat007 » Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:26 am
OA is B

Since the production wastage will be proportional to the number of jet engines that are produced, IMO B fills the gap.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:19 pm

by deepak115 » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:02 pm
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 !
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 amFollowed by: 1 member
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times

by mehravikas » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:03 pm
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.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 amFollowed by: 1 member
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times

by mehravikas » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:08 pm
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 !
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:57 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 15 times
GMAT Score:690

by crackgmat007 » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:33 pm
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.
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 12:37 pm
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.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply