Thanks,
Marc.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Mountain public concern
This topic has expert replies
-
didieravoaka
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:44 am
- Thanked: 2 times
-
GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
Premise: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 hazardouse 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.
In 1994, (total waste)/(total number of workers) = 90/1.
Last year, (total waste)/(total number of workers) = 40/1.
Conclusion:
From 1994 to last year, the manufacturer has met its goal of reducing by half the total amount of yearly waste.
The manufacture concludes that the decrease in the ratio -- from 90/1 to 40/1 -- is due to a decrease in the NUMERATOR (the amount of waste produced).
The assumption is that the decrease in the ratio is NOT due to an increase in the DENOMINATOR (the total number of workers)
.
Answer choice E states this assumption:
The manufacturer assumes that the number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not significantly less in 1994 than it was last year.
In other words, the manufacturer assumes that there was not an INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF WORKERS.
The correct answer is E.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
We can also use the NEGATION TECHNIQUE with this assumption question.
When we negate E, we get: The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division WAS significantly less in 1994 than it was last year. This negated assumption DESTROYS the argument.
So, we now have have significantly more production workers than we did in 1994. So, even if the average waste PER WORKER has decreased by a little more than 50%, there are more workers now. So, it's unlikely that the TOTAL waste has decreased by 50%
Since the negated E destroys the argument, it must be the correct answer
For more on the negation technique (and solving Assumption questions), see our free video - https://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat- ... video/1139
Then practice with this question - https://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat- ... video/1191
Cheers,
Brent
When we negate E, we get: The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division WAS significantly less in 1994 than it was last year. This negated assumption DESTROYS the argument.
So, we now have have significantly more production workers than we did in 1994. So, even if the average waste PER WORKER has decreased by a little more than 50%, there are more workers now. So, it's unlikely that the TOTAL waste has decreased by 50%
Since the negated E destroys the argument, it must be the correct answer
For more on the negation technique (and solving Assumption questions), see our free video - https://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat- ... video/1139
Then practice with this question - https://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat- ... video/1191
Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
-
didieravoaka
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:44 am
- Thanked: 2 times
-
fulltapori
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:14 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
How did we rule B out ? B looks good as well , I chose E but was a bit difficult choice between the two.
If the number of planes produced last year were less as compared to '94 then the hazardous waste generation would be less , per production worker this would come down to a lesser number even if the total amount of waste produced is same or more. Any thoughts ?
If the number of planes produced last year were less as compared to '94 then the hazardous waste generation would be less , per production worker this would come down to a lesser number even if the total amount of waste produced is same or more. Any thoughts ?
