Quote:
But I don't understand why the OAs are correct.
For Q4, I don't see "one method of increasing productivity" anywhere above Abernathy's study.
How does Abernathy's study support an earlier assertion if there is no assertion ahead of Abernathy's study?
Can an expert please reply, because I am not able to figure this out. Abernathy’s study is about ability to develop new products. I can't see any "earlier assertion" (means any reference to this) in the passage, because 40 40 20 rule does not mention new products at all..
Is it confirmed that this is the right answer?
I think B is more appropriate, because according to B, address possible objections to a recommendation about improving manufacturing competitiveness.
So, recommendation about improving manufacturing competitiveness was to increase productivity, but Abernathy’s study says that an industry can easily become prisoner of its own investments in cost-cutting techniques, reducing its ability to develop new products.
So, the study is clearly objecting to the traditional cost-cutting techniques. But not sure if his study is objecting the recommendation; but B says: address possible objections to a recommendation. This might be slightly different.
Would request experts.
Quote:
For Q7, I don't see anything that shows or infers usefulness of cost-cutting in the passage.
This one is actually ok. Following portion of the passage states this:
This rule does not imply that cost-cutting should not be tried. The well-known tools of this approach—including simplifying jobs and retraining employees to work smarter, not harder—
do produce results. But the tools quickly reach the limits of what they can contribute.