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

Redeem

Conclusion! Tribnia's coal Industry.

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:53 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:5 members

Conclusion! Tribnia's coal Industry.

by amysky_0205 » Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:07 am
That the application of new technology can increase the productivity of existing coal mines is demonstrated by the case of Tribnia's coal industry. Coal output per miner in Tribnia is double what it was five years ago, even though no new mines have opened.

Which of the following can be properly concluded from the statement about coal output per miner in the passage?

A.If the number of miners working in Tribnian coal mines has remained constant in the past five years, Tribnia's total coal production has doubled in that period of time.

B.Any individual Tribnian coal mine that achieved an increase in overall output in the past five years has also experienced an increase in output per miner.

C.If any new coal mines had opened in Tribnia in the past five years, then the increase in output per miner would have been even greater than it actually was.

D.If any individual Tribnian coal mine has not increased its output per miner in the past five years, then that mine's overall output has declined or remained constant.

E.In Tribnia the cost of producing a given quantity of coal has declined over the past five years.

OA: A

can someone explain why B is wrong? tks a LOT (:
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:14 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:6 members

by The Iceman » Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:25 am
amysky_0205 wrote:That the application of new technology can increase the productivity of existing coal mines is demonstrated by the case of Tribnia's coal industry. Coal output per miner in Tribnia is double what it was five years ago, even though no new mines have opened.

Which of the following can be properly concluded from the statement about coal output per miner in the passage?

A.If the number of miners working in Tribnian coal mines has remained constant in the past five years, Tribnia's total coal production has doubled in that period of time.

B.Any individual Tribnian coal mine that achieved an increase in overall output in the past five years has also experienced an increase in output per miner.

C.If any new coal mines had opened in Tribnia in the past five years, then the increase in output per miner would have been even greater than it actually was.

D.If any individual Tribnian coal mine has not increased its output per miner in the past five years, then that mine's overall output has declined or remained constant.

E.In Tribnia the cost of producing a given quantity of coal has declined over the past five years.

OA: A

can someone explain why B is wrong? tks a LOT (:
B is incorrect because an increase in overall output inany particular mine can happen even with same number of miners or even lesser number of miners and even vice versa is true.

The only thing we know that if we sum total the output of all the coal mines operating in Tribnian, the figure per miner should have doubled in the past five years
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 7:08 am
Thanked: 322 times
Followed by:143 members

by Kasia@EconomistGMAT » Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:37 am
Let's analyze the premises. We learn from the argument that coal output per miner in all Tribnia has doubled in the last five years. However, we don't know anything about particular mines. We also know that no new mines have opened.

Answer B is not a correct conclusion because some mines might have achieved the increase in coal output because they hired new staff. Some others might have used new technology. The fact that the mine achieved an increase in overall output does not prove that there has been an increase in output per miner in this particular mine. If they hired more people, output per miner might have decreased.
Kasia
Senior Instructor
Master GMAT - the #1 rated GMAT course

"¢ If you found my post helpful, please click the "thank" button and/or follow me.

"¢ Take a 7 day free trial and find out why Economist GMAT is the highest rated GMAT course - https://gmat.economist.com/

"¢ Read GMAT Economist reviews - https://reviews.beatthegmat.com/economis ... mat-course
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 4:15 am
Thanked: 1 times

by viveksingh222 » Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:33 am
amysky_0205 wrote:That the application of new technology can increase the productivity of existing coal mines is demonstrated by the case of Tribnia's coal industry. Coal output per miner in Tribnia is double what it was five years ago, even though no new mines have opened.

Which of the following can be properly concluded from the statement about coal output per miner in the passage?

A.If the number of miners working in Tribnian coal mines has remained constant in the past five years, Tribnia's total coal production has doubled in that period of time.

B.Any individual Tribnian coal mine that achieved an increase in overall output in the past five years has also experienced an increase in output per miner.

C.If any new coal mines had opened in Tribnia in the past five years, then the increase in output per miner would have been even greater than it actually was.

D.If any individual Tribnian coal mine has not increased its output per miner in the past five years, then that mine's overall output has declined or remained constant.

E.In Tribnia the cost of producing a given quantity of coal has declined over the past five years.

OA: A

can someone explain why B is wrong? tks a LOT (:

IMO A
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1