gmat1393 wrote:
Hi
GMATNinja Please help in solving question 1 and 2.
Thanks
Question 1
Quote:
1. It can be inferred from the passage that opponents of labor concessions would most likely describe many plant-relocation decisions made by United States companies as
A. capricious
B. self-serving
C. naive
D. impulsive
E. illogical
Plant relocations are first referenced in the first sentence of the third paragraph. Then the second sentence of that paragraph states that "companies make investment decisions to fit their strategic plans and their profit objectives".
Given the context, we can infer that a plant relocation decision would qualify as an investment decision. So, if companies make plant relocation decisions to "fit their strategic plans and their profit objectives", such decisions would certainly be made to serve the interests of those companies. In other words, we could describe such decisions as "self-serving".
More importantly, there is nothing in the passage suggesting that such decisions are (A) capricious (fickle/unpredictable), (C) naive (lacking informed judgment), (D) impulsive, or (E) illogical. By process of elimination, (B) is the best choice for question #1.
Question 2
Quote:
2. It can be inferred from the passage that, until recently, which of the following has been true of United States industry in the twentieth century?
Quote:
A. Unions have consistently participated in major corporate policy decisions.
Paragraph two tells us that participation in major corporate decisions is something that unions MAY win with concession bargaining. This implies that (A) is something that has NOT been true of US industry in the past. Eliminate (A).
Quote:
B. Maintaining adequate quality control in manufacturing processes has been a principal problem.
There is nothing in the passage to support this choice. Quality
circles are mentioned as an example of shop floor techniques, but even those are only mentioned in a discussion of
possible benefits from concession bargaining. Eliminate (B).
Quote:
C. Union workers have been paid relatively high wages.
Paragraph four starts with, "Wage-related concessions have come under particular attack, since opponents believe that
high union wages underlay much of the success of United States industry in this century." From this, we can infer that union workers have had relatively high wages in the past. Hang on to (C).
Quote:
D. Two-tier wage systems have been the norm.
In paragraph four, we have, "If... two-tier wage systems...
continue to gain credence..." Thus, two-tier wage systems represent something that is
currently gaining credence, not something that has been the norm in the past. Eliminate (D).
Quote:
E. Goods produced have been priced beyond the means of most workers.
Referencing paragraph four again, we are told that, "[opponents of concessions] point out that a long-standing principle, shared by both management and labor, has been that workers should earn wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make." Since this has been a long-standing principle, we can infer that workers have been earning wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make. This contradicts choice (E), so eliminate this one.
(C) is the best answer for question #2.
Snezanelle wrote:
What about question 6: why E isn't the correct answer?
(E) is in fact the correct answer to question 6!
2) In (E), has been that workers "" should "" earn wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make. "Should" is a word used to "suggest" / "recommend". So, can we imply that the wage is lower than Goods price ?
29 May 2022, 03:27
close
