daagh wrote:
Dear generis,
Quote:
In China, wages are two times more than Taiwan's are and tens of thousands of companies have shifted operations to the mainland in search of wider margins.
I am seeking a small clarification. I am not clear what 'mainland' refers to. I am under the impression that 'mainland' refers to the sprawling continental China as distinct from the diminutive Taiwan.
It is also stated that many companies have shifted to the mainland (the Peoples' Republic of China)
Why would companies shift to the mainland in spite of higher wages there, if their intent were to earn wider margins?
My doubt is that 'mainland' may not refer to geographically the greater China, as I understand, but to Taiwan as per this statement, as the wages are low in Taiwan. Could you kindly clarify?
2. Choice C says that
in China, the companies have shifted to mainland, not to Taiwan, Does this sync with the orginal meaning?
Sorry, my poor knowledge of global geography is not helping me.
Thanks in advance and regards
daagh , you are correct. The author of this question needs to look at a map,
which is easily found on the internet.
Taiwan is the island. China is the mainland.
Quote:
Sorry, my poor knowledge of global geography is not helping me.
I am not sure whether your post, including this statement, is tongue-in-cheek.
Your sophisticated and often elegant prose is also often worldly.
I am glad that you brought up the issue, because:
(1) my first thought when I read this sentence was, "Whoever wrote this sentence is geographically challenged.
Taiwan is the island. China is the mainland.
How does a company increase its profit margins if it moves to a place where labor costs are higher?"
and
(2) my second thought was, "Are people going to catch that the logic is exactly backwards? And continue anyway?"
Well, two people did. You and
GKomoku .
What was my point in using the question?
To steep aspirants in tolerating uncertainty in situations in which the uncertainty does not affect the answer.
At times, official questions seem to me to be insensible or nonsensical.
The official answers are correct. Outside the context of the GMAT, I know what I know, and I would never let a few such examples go out my editing door.
In the context of the GMAT? I conform to whatever GMAC says is correct.
No group of people has a monopoly on what constitutes correct grammar and sentence construction generally.
One group of people has a monopoly on what constitutes correct grammar and sentence construction on the GMAT.
It is difficult to strike the right balance among knowing the rules, deciphering the meaning, and understanding when to tolerate
uncertainty and when not to do so. Practice makes progress.
If the confusion does not affect the option split because the confusion or error affects every option,
then even if the confusion stems from our own shortcoming,
because the confusion affects all options equally, we should let it go.
I hoped to demonstrate that even if the logic appears to be or is "switched," the correct answer does not depend on that part of the logic.
I hoped that people would 1) note the error; and 2) ignore the error.
Every option has the same logical error; that error does not matter.
Recently I posted yet again about the not-ironclad (and perhaps defunct) "poisonous pronoun" rule.
I have written extensively about that issue. One such post is
HERE.
In this official question
about the goddess Bona Dea, a possessive noun is the antecedent for an object pronoun,
her.
-- People are still being taught that possessive nouns can be antecedents of only one type of pronoun (possessive).
Such people would read that question and its options, and at least initially, these people would think that the construction were erroneous.
At some point, I hope, these people would see that the answer is not affected by what would look like an error to them.
-- In
every option,
the goddess Bona Dea's aid is the phrase from which we must choose the antecedent of
to thank/thanking HER.
This question presents a similar problem; no answer appears to be correct because the underlined portion is illogical.
As you probably know, among the hardest skills to impart is the ability to stop staring at proverbial trees and take a look at the forest.
-- Yes, stare at the trees until doing so becomes an exercise in futility. Then peer through an expansive lens. See the forest.
-- The ability to tolerate uncertainty is rare. In SC, at times, that ability is imperative.
I was trying to demonstrate that an aspirant may not like the least bad of five questionable options,
but if that option is the most correct, the aspirant does not have to like it. She just has to choose it.
Thank you for raising the issue. Regards.
_________________
—The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance. ~Einstein—I stand with Ukraine.
Donate to Help Ukraine!