It said: “tips left by customers who pay their bill in cash”.
They didn’t say anything about whether or not the customer actually had a CC.
It’s a very odd assertion in the first place. Don’t most people leave a tip based on a percentage of the bill? Could it be that the CC logo makes people think, subconsciously, that they are in a more expensive place and cause them to leave a bigger tip? Doesn’t seem very likely.
I’d like to see the actual figures and details of the sampling methodology before I took this seriously.
Hotco oil burners, designed to be used in asphalt plants, are so efficient that Hotco will sell one to the Clifton Asphalt plant for no payment other than the cost savings between the total amount the asphalt plant actually paid for oil using its former burner during the last two years and the total amount it will pay for oil using the Hotco burner during the next two years. On installation, the plant will make an estimated payment, which will be adjusted after two years to equal the actual cost savings.
I never visited Asphalt plant . Does Asphalt plant has only one burner ? look it says Hotco will sell one to the Clifton Asphalt plant…
Now there is a little math I think here.
for no payment other than the cost savings between the total amount the asphalt plant actually paid for oil using its former burner during the last two years and the total amount it will pay for oil using the
Hotco burner during the next two years.
payment when plant used former oil burner during the last two years = P1 $
payment when plant will be using HOTCO oil burner during the next two years = P2 $
Cost savings = (P1-P2)$
So, Asphalt plant will charge no payment other than the cost savings =(P1-P2)$
Now at the last statement it says
On installation, the plant will make an estimated payment, which will be adjusted after two years to equal the actual cost savings.
estimated payment ??? what it this ? is it just a part payment ? at the end of next two years the remaining i.e [(P1-P2)$ - part payment ] will be paid.
could you please tell whether my understanding is correct ?
Correct, though Hotco is gambling that their burner is so much more efficient than the burner that the asphalt plant currently uses, that they’ll still make some money on the bargain. (Not to mention the fact that, if their burner is as efficient as they think, they’d probably use the example in their advertising.)
Hotco is trying to convince the asphalt plant to buy one of their burners. What they’re doing is trying to convince the asphalt plant that there’s no way the plant can lose money on this deal–there’s no risk, and the plant has a known break-even date.
Suppose “the total amount the asphalt plant actually paid for oil using its former burner during the last two years” is $1000. Suppose Hotco thinks “the total amount it will pay for oil using the Hotco burner during the next two years” will be $500.
Hotco’s argument is this:
If the plant does not put in a new burner, it would expect to pay $1000 for oil over the next two years.
If the plant does put in a new Hotco burner, the plant would pay exactly $1000 over the next two years: probably $500 for oil and $500 to Hotco, but whatever the oil cost actually is, the remainder of the $1000 goes to Hotco.
Whatever the plant decides to do, at the end of two years they’ve paid $1000, and have a working burner.
BUT, if they buy a Hotco burner, they would expect to see a savings in year three.
It’s not “paid for oil using its former burner”. It’s “the amount paid for oil using its former burner”. Hotco, who is selling the plant the burner, is saying that buying the new burner will save the plant money because it will require less oil. The plant will have to buy less oil if they buy the new Hotco burner. So they will have to spend less money on buying oil. This will save them money. The plant will have to pay both the cost of oil and the cost of the burner.
An experiment was done in which human subjects recognize a pattern within a matrix of abstract designs and then select another design that completes that pattern. The results of the experiment were surprising. The lowest expenditure of energy in neurons in the brain was found in those subjects who performed most
successfully in the experiments.
This is a horrible experiment …not sure what it is
**An experiment was done in which people recognize a pattern within a matrix of abstract designs and then select another design that completes that pattern. **
This experiment was designed to determine how well the people being studied (the experimental subjects) could perceive patterns. The task they are describing was almost exactly like this common type of logic puzzle. Four meaningless sets of lines (abstract designs) actually have something in common – you choose the fifth that completes the pattern.
“Matrix” in this context is synonymous with “grouping” or “assemblage” or “set.” Usually it refers to a grouping that is interconnected in some way – each of the items in the group shares something with each of the other items.
This is a very simple concept that was stated in the most complicated way possible in the example. Remember, many of these GMAT reading-comprehension questions are written in an intentionally confusing way. They do not represent ideal, or even good, English.
You might say that, and it’s not necessarily incorrrect, but there are two potential problems with that statement:
It’s possible that the “low expenditure of energy” is because the brain is using fewer neurons, not because each neuron is using less energy. In this case, it would be the brain that is “energy efficient,” not the individual neurons.
In any case, some portion of the brain has a lower expenditure of energy. That technically means that portion is more “energy efficient” because it’s using less energy to do the same task. However, it’s unusual (not wrong, just unusual) to apply the concept of “energy efficiency” to something like “thinking,” because the energy usage is nowhere near the most important aspect of thinking.
The irradiation of food kills bacteria and thus retards spoilage. However, it also lowers the nutritional value of many foods. For example, irradiation destroys a signifi cant percentage of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain. Proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking. However, this fact is either beside the point, since much irradiated food is eaten raw, or else misleading, since for food that is both irradiated and cooked, the reduction of vitamin B1 associated with either process individually is compounded.
I don’t get word “misleading” …why ? it seems to me not a proper usage here.
I don’t get word “compounded” also…?
A simpler version would be:
Cooking and irradiating food both destroy vitamins. That fact is either beside the point or misleading. In the case of raw irradiated food, that fact is beside the point, since there is no cooking damage to compare to the radiation damage. In the case of cooked irradiated food, that fact is misleading, since there are two sources of damage.
There are some subordinate clauses in the original sentence, but if you unpack everything, you essentially have the author saying “This fact is misleading”, which should be easier for you to understand.
“Compounding” here is very much like compound interest (or a compound fracture): a combined effect that’s more than the sum of its parts. In compound interest, you have one interest rate, but each time it is applied, there’s more principal left from the previous times, so you get more money. In a compound fracture, not only is your bone broken, but it’s also ripped a hole in your skin and is letting bacteria in. According to the author here, the cooking destroys more vitamin B1 than it would have, possibly because the irradiating has already degraded the vitamin B1 that it didn’t outright destroy.
The author is saying that irradiation proponents are being misleading because “irradiation is no worse than cooking” implies that cooked food will lose the same amount of nutrition whether it is irradiated or not. However (claims the author), food that is both cooked and irradiated loses more nutrition than food that is only cooked, because it loses some to the radiation and some to cooking.
“Compounded” (in this sense) means “added to.” For example, “I accidentally spilled tea on the ambassador, and compounded my mistake by insulting his wife.” In your text, “compounded” means that the loss of vitamins from each process can be added together when the food is both cooked and irradiated. “Compound interest” occurs when the interest is added to the principal, and later interest calculated on the sum. So you can have an account where the interest is compounded (i.e., calculated and added into hte account) monthly, daily, or even continuously.
…yup , Hotco is efficient burner they already mentioned
