That the application of new technology can increase the productivity of existing coal mines is demonstrated by the case of...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
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?
Passage Visualization
| Passage Statement | Visualization and Linkage |
|---|---|
| "That the application of new technology can increase the productivity of existing coal mines is demonstrated by the case of Tribnia's coal industry." |
Establishes: Main claim about technology and productivity Key Pattern: New technology → increased productivity in existing mines Example Framework: Technology improvements (automated extraction, better equipment) can boost output without opening new facilities |
| "Coal output per miner in Tribnia is double what it was five years ago" |
Establishes: Specific productivity measurement Concrete Example:
|
| "even though no new mines have opened" |
Establishes: Constraint that eliminates alternative explanations Critical Limitation: Rules out expansion-based productivity gains Implication: All productivity improvements must come from changes within existing operations, not from accessing new/better coal deposits |
| Overall Implication |
Key Pattern Revealed: Productivity gains occurred within existing infrastructure constraints Demonstrated Connection: The dramatic doubling of per-miner output, combined with no new mine openings, provides concrete evidence supporting the technology-productivity relationship claim |
Valid Inferences
Inference: Tribnia's total coal output increased significantly over the five-year period.
Supporting Logic: Since coal output per miner doubled from five years ago and no mines closed (only that no new mines opened is mentioned), the total output must have increased substantially. Even if the number of miners remained constant, total output would have doubled, and if more miners were hired at existing mines, total output would have increased even more dramatically.
Clarification Note: While we can conclude that total output increased, the passage doesn't specify whether the number of miners changed, so we cannot determine the exact magnitude of the total output increase beyond knowing it was significant.
This presents a conditional statement that we can test logically. The passage tells us coal output per miner doubled. If the number of miners remained constant (the 'if' condition), then total production would indeed double - this is straightforward math. When productivity per person doubles and the workforce stays the same, total output doubles. This can be properly concluded from the passage information.
This reverses the logical relationship incorrectly. The passage tells us about overall industry productivity (output per miner doubled), but we cannot conclude that every individual mine that increased total output also increased output per miner. A mine could increase total output by hiring more miners while keeping per-miner productivity flat. The industry-wide statistic doesn't guarantee this relationship holds for each individual mine.
This makes an unsupported claim about what would have happened in a counterfactual scenario. The passage doesn't provide any information about how opening new mines would have affected the productivity improvements at existing mines. We have no basis to conclude that new mines would have made the per-miner improvements even greater.
This attempts to make a definitive claim about individual mines based on industry-wide data, which we cannot support. Just because the industry average doubled doesn't mean every single mine that failed to increase output per miner must have declining or constant total output. Industry averages don't determine individual mine performance with this level of certainty.
This introduces cost information that is completely absent from the passage. While productivity increased, we know nothing about production costs, equipment expenses, labor costs, or any other factors that would determine the cost of producing coal. Higher productivity doesn't automatically mean lower costs.