天山-3-16

JerryGuan

Q16:

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.

这题给出的答案是B，我选的是E。

我无法相信B是答案；因为原题说的是：per production worker，不是per passenger jets

是我错了？答案错了？

蓝羽

我认为答案应该是E。

Conclusion:reducing by half the total yearly amount of hazardous waste.

Line of reasoning: output was 90 pounds per production worker; last year 40pounds per production worker.

Assumption: The number of workers was not significantly less in 1994 than it was last year.

因为总的工人数没有变化，才有结果的。

我觉得和制造数量无关。

createdream

赞同！   应该是E，很清楚。   答案B错！

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-11 5:51:42编辑过]

joe11

欧来阐述一下B.

per worker 污染物 = 总的污染物 / 工人数量

B.   At least as many passenger jets were produced by the division last year as had been produced in 1994.

simplify it, passenger jet 产量没减，生产同样多的原始污染物，工人数量不变，

只有program 有效的情况下才能推出per worker 污染物由90减为40。

反证法：假设B不对，若passenger jet 产量减少了，生产的原始污染物减少了，工人数量不变，

二者一除，能推出per worker 污染物减少，不需要program 有效。即，否定了原文结论。

gmatgamester

我也选E。只要污染物总量是下降了一半，这个program就达到了its goal。

joe11

I surrender .  E is better.

B just need so many extra assumptions.

whitesand

E
only the no of production worker is the dominent element

爱维的天

看了前面的讨论，有个小问题
题目中的waste倒底是由worker制造出来的还是在制造passenger-jet的时候产生的?

我个人是觉得是后者，也就是在制造passenger-jet的时候产生的

因为   per worker 污染物 = 总的污染物 / 工人数量
所以影响的因素除了工人数量外，总的污染物也一样重要。
﹙E﹚说明的就是工人数量的部分，
而
﹙B﹚说明的就是总的污染物的部分

但是将﹙E﹚取非后后发现变成” 制造人数较1994年减少”，套到上面的公式可以weaken题目
但是﹙B﹚取非后发现变成”和1994年制造的plane数量上不一样多”，但可没有说明是变多还是变少，因此﹙E﹚较﹙B﹚为更适当的选项。

gwachen

support E !

litheliluo

我支持B

E应该不是一个必要的前提。题目是从“去年每个工人有害废品的产出量少于1994年”这样一个事实来推断“项目效果已经达到’。E——“1994年工人的数量远不低于去年”。乍看符合数学运算公式（分母减少，则结果增大），而实际上，如果工人数量减少，整个产量肯定也会下降，因而结果仍然是不变的。

相反，B——‘去年这种喷汽式飞机的产量至少不能低于1994年’则是一个必要前提，因为要得出排废量下降是项目运做而不是减产达到的效果，就必须指出产量方面没有下降。

E项是一个很大的迷惑选项，但如果我们研究ETS的典型出题思路，其实可以发现，题目里谈到的“每个工人的产废量是多少多少’这类的话，其实已经将工人数量的变化以及产量的变化考虑进去了（不管这两个变量如何变，它们的比值不变）。这是ETS非常狡猾的一种题型，看上去似乎在考简单的数学运算，但是考点根本不在这里。