Airplane manufacturer

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Chennai, India
Thanked: 206 times
Followed by:43 members
GMAT Score:640

Airplane manufacturer

by GmatKiss » Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:08 pm
In response to mounting public 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.

OA : E
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:53 am
Thanked: 52 times
Followed by:5 members

by killer1387 » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:05 pm
IMO E

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1239
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:25 am
Thanked: 233 times
Followed by:26 members
GMAT Score:680

by sam2304 » Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:47 am
IMO E.

Other options are quite irrelevant
Getting defeated is just a temporary notion, giving it up is what makes it permanent.
https://gmatandbeyond.blogspot.in/

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:01 pm
Thanked: 54 times
Followed by:37 members

by chris@magoosh » Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:58 pm
The claim: the passenger-jet division has seriously reduced waste material.

The evidence: the waste material per worker has decreased.

There is a major hole in this argument, and it has to do with the phrase "per worker." Imagine that more than twice as many people were working in the last year vs. 1994. All of a sudden, the amount of waste material is around the same as it was in 1994. Let's take a look at the numbers:

1994: 100 workers x 90/per worker = 9000
Last Year: 250 workers x 40/per worker = 10,000

With these number there is an actual increase. Thus, we want an answer choice that speaks to this logical flaw. Only (E) does so.