livia.maas
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 3
Joined: August 25th, 2015
 
 
 

Q25 - A clothing manufacturer reports

by livia.maas Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:02 am

Hi all,

I ended up choosing (D) for this question, although the correct answer is (E). How is (E) correct? Just because there's a difference in how unsalable and recycled garments are counted, it doesn't necessarily explain the percentage change.

I'm also confused whether the percentages are being drawn from two different groups. Please help? :shock:
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q25 - A clothing manufacturer reports

by ohthatpatrick Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:32 pm

Question Type: Explain the Discrepancy

Reading Goal:
Given that IDEA 1 is true, how is it that IDEA 2 is also true?

PARADOX

Given that 7% of garments produced are unsalable (and they all get recycled as scrap)
How is it that 9% of garments produced are recycled as scrap?

WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT
If 7% of garments can't be sold and get recycled, we'd think that
7% of garments get recycled.

Why is the % higher than 7%?

PREDICTING THE ANSWER
That's actually kinda dangerous for these questions, as the test writers love to surprise us with how they resolve the paradox.

My prediction for this paradox is "some garments that CAN be sold still end up getting recycled".

That would allow for
7% of garments are unsalable and get recycled
+
2% of garments are salable and get recycled
==================
9% of garments get recycled

But they don't go that direction.

ANSWER CHOICES
mantra: "Why is the % of recycled scrap higher than the % of unsalable garments?"

(A) This is about salable, which we only care about if we learn that it gets recycled as scrap sometimes.

(B) Hearing about WHY something is deemed unsalable doesn't help us resolve the % math.

(C) Again, we don't care about the backstory behind this 7% unsalable figure. We just need to reconcile it with the 9% statistic.

(D) Actual numbers don't matter, because we're talking percentages.

(E) This answer speaks to the 7% (unsalable) vs. 9% (recycled) stats. It shows how the same quantity of clothing (a huge stack of unsalable clothing) might be measured as 7% of all garments (70 out of the 1000 garments we made) or measured as 9% of garments (90lbs out of the 1000lbs of clothing we made).

Apparently, the reject pile is heavier than our average piece of clothing. We apparently are most likely to mess up heavy jackets and sweaters. So 7% of items becomes 9% of fabric.

Hope this helps.
 
AshleyT786
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 23
Joined: August 26th, 2021
 
 
 

Re: Q25 - A clothing manufacturer reports

by AshleyT786 Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:27 pm

But how do you even know to focus on E? For me, it seemed like an irrelevant difference.
 
AshleyT786
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 23
Joined: August 26th, 2021
 
 
 

Re: Q25 - A clothing manufacturer reports

by AshleyT786 Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:45 pm

I thought C was correct because if some inspectors were overeporting defects then those garments were not truly "unsalable" which could possibly explain the discrepancy in percentages.