In response to mounting public concern, an airplane manufact

[nayak.purnendu]

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.

Could not understand the argument logic. Can some tutor help me in getting the structure ?

in 1994: H waste output = 90 pounds per production worker
last year: it was 40 pounds per production worker.
That means it is producing more hazardous wastes per worker in 1994 (opposite to the goal - however the goal is about reduction in TOTAL annual H. WASTE.)
Conclusion: therefore, charges that the manufacturer's program has not met its goal are false.
Assumption: number of workers (N) has dramatically reduced.
Let last year, the number of workers be M.
N * 90 < M * 40
N < M
Can you please rephrase the option E ? Is it the same as I have done it above ?

[vittalk_usa]

I am divided between B and E. Let me analyze it aloud.
Assumption questions are best handled by logically negating a little bit or completely logically negating the answer choice. If the argument gets destroyed, then that answer choice is the correct one.
Lets take ans choice B, which says that the atleast same # of passenger jets are manufactured last year as had been in 1994.
Nowhere it says that ONLY passenger jets creates hw. So negating will not destroy the argument necessarily. So lets table B for now and look at E.

E says that # of workers employed in that div in 1994 was not significantly less than now. ie. it is NOT something like 5 workers were in that div in 1994 and now it is 50000000. What if it is true given that the same amount of haz waste was produced in 1994 and last year. Then it would appear that last year the amt of hz waste produced per person is less but infact it was the same or even more...
hence E is the correct answer.

[RonPurewal]

see here:
cr-in-response-to-mounting-pubic-concern-an-airplane-t7984.html

also see here: (my posts are under "lunarpower")
http://www.beatthegmat.com/airplane-man ... 87-15.html

[pratik.munjal]

Okay--here's my response on how to tackle this. The key is to get the phrase "total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated"

In 1994, let's say the number of workers were 100. As per the question, total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated = 90 x 100=9000 (some units)

Now last year, if the number of workers were the same (100), the total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated = 40 x 100 = 4000. But this is less than 1994's figure. So what is the assumption?

What if the total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated= 100,000 and the total number of workers have been increased to 2,500. Clearly, per worker waste has reduced, but the total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated hasn't.

Option e is the best choice.

[RonPurewal]

Okay--here's my response on how to tackle this. The key is to get the phrase "total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated"

In 1994, let's say the number of workers were 100. As per the question, total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated = 90 x 100=9000 (some units)

Now last year, if the number of workers were the same (100), the total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated = 40 x 100 = 4000. But this is less than 1994's figure. So what is the assumption?

What if the total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated= 100,000 and the total number of workers have been increased to 2,500. Clearly, per worker waste has reduced, but the total yearly amount of hazardous waste generated hasn't.

Option e is the best choice.

this is pretty much the idea, yes.
however, you should try to develop a level of intuition at which you can make this kind of quantitative judgment without having to substitute in concrete numbers. in other words, you should endeavor to develop a more abstract sense of how statistics behave -- and of which meanings come from certain statistics and which don't -- without having to look at specific cases all the time.

[aps_asks]

Hey Ron ,

Why is d) inferior compared to e) ?

[RonPurewal]

Hey Ron ,

Why is d) inferior compared to e) ?

the time spent by the workers has no effect on any of the statistics in this argument, and so is irrelevant.