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.
Looking at the question I thought it was an easy one to crack. Since the argument is about number of pounds/production worker, the argument has to assume something about the total number of production workers in 1994 should not be significantly less than in the previous year.
Say in 1994 - the number of workers is 10
Total hazardous waste = 1000 pounds then the number of pounds/worker is 100 pounds.
Last year the amount of waste = 1000 pounds and the number of workers are increased to 50 then the number of pounds/worker of the waste is 20 pounds.
So with this thought process I applied the Kaplan denial test and concluded that it weakens the argument. Thats why I choose E.
Obviously the answer was not E but B.
Stuart can you please explain how to differentiate between 2 choices that are very close (atleast in this case for me).
I would appreciate others input too.
Thanks.
Abhi
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.
Looking at the question I thought it was an easy one to crack. Since the argument is about number of pounds/production worker, the argument has to assume something about the total number of production workers in 1994 should not be significantly less than in the previous year.
Say in 1994 - the number of workers is 10
Total hazardous waste = 1000 pounds then the number of pounds/worker is 100 pounds.
Last year the amount of waste = 1000 pounds and the number of workers are increased to 50 then the number of pounds/worker of the waste is 20 pounds.
So with this thought process I applied the Kaplan denial test and concluded that it weakens the argument. Thats why I choose E.
Obviously the answer was not E but B.
Stuart can you please explain how to differentiate between 2 choices that are very close (atleast in this case for me).
I would appreciate others input too.
Thanks.
Abhi
