CR: In response to mounting pubic concern, an airplane

[cesar.rodriguez.blanco]

I do not understand the following CR. Please help

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.

[sunny.jain]

What is the conlusion here?

any Charge against the program's validity is False.

Premise:
1) program reduce the industrial waste from 90 pounds to 40 pounds per worker.
2) program was to reduce the total yearly amount of waste.


Answer;

A) irrelvant : out
B) out : same reason
C) out : same reason
D) a difficult one, but the data given doesnt say that 90 pounds or 40 pounds are hourly waste.
Since its a big quantity, i can think that its yearly waste by one worker. so how many hours they actually worked
doesnt matter.

E) This matters, because if number of worker are same in those 2 years, industrial was has been reduced significantly.

So I will go with E.

[NIKESH_PAHUJA]

It is argued that charges against the manufacture are false and program has met its goal of reducing the total yearly amount of hazardous waste by half.

It depends on the premise that amount of waster produced per worker has reduced from 90 to 40 pounds.

But we know, Total yearly amount = Amount per worker * number of workers

What if the number of workers has increased significantly ? In that case, Plan wont achieve its goal even after redcuing amount of waster per worker.

Hence the assumption is Number of workers assigened to jet division is roughly the same.

A. The amount of nonhazardous waste generated each year by the passenger-jet
division has not increased significantly since 1994. ------- Out since we are talking about the hazardous waste
B. At least as many passenger jets were produced by the division last year as had
been produced in 1994. -------------irrelevant as amount produced is given as pounds/per person, and doesnot depend on the number of jets produced.
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. -------- we are talking only about passagner-jet divison. so out
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. --- No of hours doesnot matter. as we are concerned with only . amount of waster per worker
E. The number of production workers assigned to the passenger-jet division was not
significantly less in 1994 than it was last year.--------- Yes, this is the one.

[nitin_prakash_khanna]

Why is B not a correct option?
The conclusion says that the Program to reduce the waste has met its goal. What if the company produced less number of jets with same number of production workers.
if the total production drops, then waste per person drops for same number of workers.

So for the program success we have to assume that Amount of product and number of workers both should be constant for waster / worker to go down.

B & E are very close in my view. what say? and whats the OA?

[cesar.rodriguez.blanco]

OA is E

[RonPurewal]

the answer to this problem should be (e).

the production company's GOAL was to lower the TOTAL AMOUNT of hazardous waste produced.

the EVIDENCE is stated in terms of the amount PER WORKER, not the total amount.

this is everything.

therefore, if we can find an answer choice that CONNECTS these two concepts (the total amount of hazardous waste and the amount of hazardous waste per worker), then that's the correct answer.

this is precisely what answer choice (e) does.

--

answer choice (b) is irrelevant, as we have no information about how much waste is produced PER JET - not now, not then, never.