I think answer Should be E,
Because if Increase did not assume that production workers were almost the same or more in current year than 1994, then even if we decrease the waste per costumer total amount of waste will remain same.

Lets try this.

in 1994 in total 100 workers were in placed and each worker did 90 waste.= 9000
in current year if increase the number of workers say 300 workers and 40 waste per customer in total = 12000

So waste per worker is decreased but for the conclusion to be true we have to assume that number workers were same in current year or less than 1994.

And I'm 100% sure B is incorrect and E is correct

My way:

First, to make things clear I assumed last year is 1996 (or any after 1994). This way I would compare between 1994 and 1996. And ofcourse, last year is not 1994.

Numbers/Percentages/Proportions - be very careful

Waste per worker or rate = Total waste / Total number of workers

Since, rate depends upon two quantities, we can't say that if rate has decreased, the total waste has decreased as well.

Among many possibilities, rate can decrease if
1. the total remains constant, and number of workers increases
or
2. the total decreases, and number of workers remains constant

E says, the number of workers was not significantly less in 1994 than in 1996

So, number of workers in 1994 N1 < number of workers in 1996 N2
But, N2 - N1 is not very much

or
(very simplified), (using numbers N1 = 97 and N2 = 100), almost constant (Case 2)

If the author has assumed this, he can say that charges are false

I also dont think E should be answer
because
what if E were false?
does it effect goal of reducing per person waste or effect conclusion that plan has indeed worked...(it is making claim that it has brought thing down from 90 to 40 per person)
it doesnt matter how many person there may be....

it doesnt say goal was to reduce 'total waste production' or in totality ...
so i agree irony or wrong pillar for conclusion

frank1 wrote:I also dont think E should be answer
because
what if E were false?
does it effect goal of reducing per person waste or effect conclusion that plan has indeed worked...(it is making claim that it has brought thing down from 90 to 40 per person)
it doesnt matter how many person there may be....

it doesnt say goal was to reduce 'total waste production' or in totality ...
so i agree irony or wrong pillar for conclusion

Why are you taking the rate of waste as total waste / total jets when the reasoning uses total waste / total workers ?

This question's apparent complexity can be quickly disarmed with the proper work order:

1. First, read the question stem. It tells you you're looking for an assumption.

2. Then, read the argument. The following should raise the alarm in your head: the end of sentence 1 talks about "amount of hazardous waste" in total while the beginning of sentence 2 says it was "90 pounds per production worker". How did production workers get into this? What do we know about them? Who said this basis for comparison remained the same throughout the years? Smells like an assumption.

3. Next, try to think of the answer yourself for a moment. In this case, any answer choice pointing out that the number of workers was assumed to have stayed the same over the years would be good.

4. Now scan the answer choices and look for a match:
(A) does not talk about production workers;
(B) mentions production, which may indirectly influence production workers, but it's too general;
(C) does not talk about production workers;
(D) is a nasty distraction - it tells us last year's weekly hours of production workers was roughly the same as in 1994; and finally
(E) has exactly what we need - it says the number of production workers last year was roughly that of 1994. If it weren't so, the author's conclusion would be false, because it is based on the rate of waste per production worker.