Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 1907:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Solve 30 GMAT Focus practice problems covering Problem Solving, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, and Critical Reasoning. Take this GMAT practice quiz live with peers, analyze your GMAT study progress, and see where you stand in the GMAT student pool.
May 1911:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease.- May 16
01:30 PM IST
-11:00 PM IST
With brand new features like:AI-driven Planner tool, 850+ data Insights practice questions and GMAT Focus Edition Adaptive mock tests with ESR+ analysis and personal mentor support, our course is the most comprehensive course for GMAT Focus Edition. 
May 1805:30 AM PDT
-07:30 AM PDT
Unlock GMAT success! Join our webinar for exclusive insights on scoring V85+ in the Verbal section. Proven strategies, expert tips, and essential focus to elevate your GMAT game. Register now for the ultimate Verbal mastery!- May 18
07:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join live on GMAT Club's YouTube channel as we hear his success story after getting Rejected by ISB. - May 20
12:00 PM PDT
-01:00 PM PDT
Get Ready for a Truly Personalized Testing Experience. - May 21
07:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Are you curious about the dynamic field of Product Management and how it can shape your career trajectory? Join Carnegie Mellon for an insightful conversation about the MS in Product Management (MSPM) ... - May 25
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
In this webinar, Rajat Sadana, GMAT Club’s #1 rated expert will help you create a personalized study plan so that each one of you can visualize your journey to a top GMAT Focus Score. 
May 2501:00 PM EDT
-02:00 PM EDT
Think a 100% GMAT Focus Verbal score is out of your reach? TTP will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
May 2508:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
May 2605:30 AM PDT
-07:30 AM PDT
Do you want to ace the GMAT Focus? Join Piyush Beriwala in this webinar as he guides you through a smart study plan to achieve the 99th %ile on the GMAT Focus. Learn the best strategies and tips to master the test and boost your score.
May 2601:00 PM EDT
-02:00 PM EDT
The Target Test Prep team is excited to announce multiple live online classes for GMAT Focus test-takers in May. Our 40-hour LiveTeach program will take your GMAT Focus score to the next level.
Re: Most pre-1990 literature on businesses' use of information technology
[#permalink]
Updated on: 02 Mar 2021, 09:08
Updated on: 02 Mar 2021, 09:08
Dear mikemcgarry
I am always interested in any your explanation. Regarding the question 01, I understood why choice C is the correct one from your analysis. Unfortunately, I was wrong for choice B.
For each wrong time, I always try to understand why it is wrong. After reviewing the choice B, however, I till confuse the reason for mistake. Whether choice B is wrong because:
- the author did not present a theory, but he presented more than one theory?
Note: the author mentioned "most pre-1990 literature", and he presented this by: "Proponents of IT argued that .........and some suggested that........"
- the author did not offer an opposing point of view, but he merely did an explanation for a paradox issue? Note: Initially, I understood that author offered a opposing point of view: "a recent study of retail firms, which confirmed that....." (paragraph 2)
I hope you can help me comprehend why choice B is wrong.
1. The passage is primarily concerned with
(A) describing a resource and indicating various methods used to study it
(B) presenting a theory and offering an opposing point of view
(C) providing an explanation for unexpected findings
(D) demonstrating why a particular theory is unfounded
(E) resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology
Dear hoangphuc,
I'm happy to respond.
My friend, in this context, a "finding" is simply a fact, something that all of us find to be true in our experience. The big "unexpected finding" in this passage is in sentence #2, what is called the "productivity paradox." Before 1990, humans naively assumed that more IT would be better--more IT would bring more productivity across the board. Instead, with more IT, productivity went down. That was unexpected.
The passage presents this "unexpected finding," discusses the responses & explanation from proponent of IT in the rest of paragraph #1, and then a very different take on the paradox from "resource-based theory" in paragraph #2. In other words, the passage introduces this paradox, and then spends the rest of the time talking about possible explanations of this paradox.
Now let's compare (C) & (E).
(C) providing an explanation for unexpected findings
(E) resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology
The difference here is one of tone. The passage subtly implies that the second explanation, the one deriving from "resource-based theory," is better. It definitely provides an explanation, and we readers may walk away with some sense that this second explanation is plausible. It simply "provides an explanation," and some people may be convinced by that. Here's the explanation: you can believe it or not.
The language to "resolve a disagreement" is much much stronger. That language implies that even the people who initially disagreed were won over and persuaded to agree. Who would those who disagreed? Presumably, the proponents of IT, who presented their arguments in the second half of paragraph #1. We got no response from those people in this passage--we don't hear from them or about them again. We have no idea whether they agree with the explanation from resource-based theory." Maybe they have been persuaded, but we have no evidence of that. Thus, we have no evidence that a disagreement has be "resolved." Do you see how this is much stronger language than (C)? Yes, an explanation was provided, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every last person on the planet was persuaded, putting an end to the disagreement and resolving it.
Does this make sense?
Mike
I am always interested in any your explanation. Regarding the question 01, I understood why choice C is the correct one from your analysis. Unfortunately, I was wrong for choice B.
For each wrong time, I always try to understand why it is wrong. After reviewing the choice B, however, I till confuse the reason for mistake. Whether choice B is wrong because:
- the author did not present a theory, but he presented more than one theory?
Note: the author mentioned "most pre-1990 literature", and he presented this by: "Proponents of IT argued that .........and some suggested that........"
- the author did not offer an opposing point of view, but he merely did an explanation for a paradox issue? Note: Initially, I understood that author offered a opposing point of view: "a recent study of retail firms, which confirmed that....." (paragraph 2)
I hope you can help me comprehend why choice B is wrong.
1. The passage is primarily concerned with
(A) describing a resource and indicating various methods used to study it
(B) presenting a theory and offering an opposing point of view
(C) providing an explanation for unexpected findings
(D) demonstrating why a particular theory is unfounded
(E) resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology
mikemcgarry wrote:
hoangphuc wrote:
Hi, I still don't get why answer C is true in Question 1. Passage clearly defines old belief -> paradox -> proponent of old belief -> why paradox -> resource based theory explain. Answer E clearly shows that passage resolves disagreement. Answer C has words "unexpected findings". What ARE findings in this passage? and where passage shows unexpected? Please help to clarify. Thanks
Dear hoangphuc,
I'm happy to respond.
My friend, in this context, a "finding" is simply a fact, something that all of us find to be true in our experience. The big "unexpected finding" in this passage is in sentence #2, what is called the "productivity paradox." Before 1990, humans naively assumed that more IT would be better--more IT would bring more productivity across the board. Instead, with more IT, productivity went down. That was unexpected.
The passage presents this "unexpected finding," discusses the responses & explanation from proponent of IT in the rest of paragraph #1, and then a very different take on the paradox from "resource-based theory" in paragraph #2. In other words, the passage introduces this paradox, and then spends the rest of the time talking about possible explanations of this paradox.
Now let's compare (C) & (E).
(C) providing an explanation for unexpected findings
(E) resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology
The difference here is one of tone. The passage subtly implies that the second explanation, the one deriving from "resource-based theory," is better. It definitely provides an explanation, and we readers may walk away with some sense that this second explanation is plausible. It simply "provides an explanation," and some people may be convinced by that. Here's the explanation: you can believe it or not.
The language to "resolve a disagreement" is much much stronger. That language implies that even the people who initially disagreed were won over and persuaded to agree. Who would those who disagreed? Presumably, the proponents of IT, who presented their arguments in the second half of paragraph #1. We got no response from those people in this passage--we don't hear from them or about them again. We have no idea whether they agree with the explanation from resource-based theory." Maybe they have been persuaded, but we have no evidence of that. Thus, we have no evidence that a disagreement has be "resolved." Do you see how this is much stronger language than (C)? Yes, an explanation was provided, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every last person on the planet was persuaded, putting an end to the disagreement and resolving it.
Does this make sense?
Mike
Originally posted by TrungTiger on 01 Mar 2021, 21:26.
Last edited by TrungTiger on 02 Mar 2021, 09:08, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by TrungTiger on 02 Mar 2021, 09:08, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Most pre-1990 literature on businesses' use of information technology
[#permalink]
02 Mar 2021, 08:46
02 Mar 2021, 08:46
2
Kudos
TrungTiger wrote:
Dear mikemcgarry
I am always interested in any your explanation. Regarding the question 01, I understood why choice C is the correct one from your analysis. Unfortunately, I was wrong for choice B.
For each wrong time, I always try to understand why it is wrong. After reviewing the choice B, however, I till confuse the reason for mistake. Whether choice B is wrong because:
- the author did not present a theory, but he did more than one theory?
- the author did not offer an opposing point of view, but he merely did an explanation for a paradox issue? Note: Initially, I understood that author offered a opposing point of view.
I hope you can help me comprehend why choice B is wrong.
1. The passage is primarily concerned with
(A) describing a resource and indicating various methods used to study it
(B) presenting a theory and offering an opposing point of view
(C) providing an explanation for unexpected findings
(D) demonstrating why a particular theory is unfounded
(E) resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology
Dear hoangphuc,
I'm happy to respond.
My friend, in this context, a "finding" is simply a fact, something that all of us find to be true in our experience. The big "unexpected finding" in this passage is in sentence #2, what is called the "productivity paradox." Before 1990, humans naively assumed that more IT would be better--more IT would bring more productivity across the board. Instead, with more IT, productivity went down. That was unexpected.
The passage presents this "unexpected finding," discusses the responses & explanation from proponent of IT in the rest of paragraph #1, and then a very different take on the paradox from "resource-based theory" in paragraph #2. In other words, the passage introduces this paradox, and then spends the rest of the time talking about possible explanations of this paradox.
Now let's compare (C) & (E).
(C) providing an explanation for unexpected findings
(E) resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology
The difference here is one of tone. The passage subtly implies that the second explanation, the one deriving from "resource-based theory," is better. It definitely provides an explanation, and we readers may walk away with some sense that this second explanation is plausible. It simply "provides an explanation," and some people may be convinced by that. Here's the explanation: you can believe it or not.
The language to "resolve a disagreement" is much much stronger. That language implies that even the people who initially disagreed were won over and persuaded to agree. Who would those who disagreed? Presumably, the proponents of IT, who presented their arguments in the second half of paragraph #1. We got no response from those people in this passage--we don't hear from them or about them again. We have no idea whether they agree with the explanation from resource-based theory." Maybe they have been persuaded, but we have no evidence of that. Thus, we have no evidence that a disagreement has be "resolved." Do you see how this is much stronger language than (C)? Yes, an explanation was provided, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every last person on the planet was persuaded, putting an end to the disagreement and resolving it.
Does this make sense?
Mike
I am always interested in any your explanation. Regarding the question 01, I understood why choice C is the correct one from your analysis. Unfortunately, I was wrong for choice B.
For each wrong time, I always try to understand why it is wrong. After reviewing the choice B, however, I till confuse the reason for mistake. Whether choice B is wrong because:
- the author did not present a theory, but he did more than one theory?
- the author did not offer an opposing point of view, but he merely did an explanation for a paradox issue? Note: Initially, I understood that author offered a opposing point of view.
I hope you can help me comprehend why choice B is wrong.
1. The passage is primarily concerned with
(A) describing a resource and indicating various methods used to study it
(B) presenting a theory and offering an opposing point of view
(C) providing an explanation for unexpected findings
(D) demonstrating why a particular theory is unfounded
(E) resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology
mikemcgarry wrote:
hoangphuc wrote:
Hi, I still don't get why answer C is true in Question 1. Passage clearly defines old belief -> paradox -> proponent of old belief -> why paradox -> resource based theory explain. Answer E clearly shows that passage resolves disagreement. Answer C has words "unexpected findings". What ARE findings in this passage? and where passage shows unexpected? Please help to clarify. Thanks
Dear hoangphuc,
I'm happy to respond.
My friend, in this context, a "finding" is simply a fact, something that all of us find to be true in our experience. The big "unexpected finding" in this passage is in sentence #2, what is called the "productivity paradox." Before 1990, humans naively assumed that more IT would be better--more IT would bring more productivity across the board. Instead, with more IT, productivity went down. That was unexpected.
The passage presents this "unexpected finding," discusses the responses & explanation from proponent of IT in the rest of paragraph #1, and then a very different take on the paradox from "resource-based theory" in paragraph #2. In other words, the passage introduces this paradox, and then spends the rest of the time talking about possible explanations of this paradox.
Now let's compare (C) & (E).
(C) providing an explanation for unexpected findings
(E) resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology
The difference here is one of tone. The passage subtly implies that the second explanation, the one deriving from "resource-based theory," is better. It definitely provides an explanation, and we readers may walk away with some sense that this second explanation is plausible. It simply "provides an explanation," and some people may be convinced by that. Here's the explanation: you can believe it or not.
The language to "resolve a disagreement" is much much stronger. That language implies that even the people who initially disagreed were won over and persuaded to agree. Who would those who disagreed? Presumably, the proponents of IT, who presented their arguments in the second half of paragraph #1. We got no response from those people in this passage--we don't hear from them or about them again. We have no idea whether they agree with the explanation from resource-based theory." Maybe they have been persuaded, but we have no evidence of that. Thus, we have no evidence that a disagreement has be "resolved." Do you see how this is much stronger language than (C)? Yes, an explanation was provided, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every last person on the planet was persuaded, putting an end to the disagreement and resolving it.
Does this make sense?
Mike
Passage Understanding:
part1: Summary: Before 1990 IT as success but then some doubts. Proponents give some favorable points on IT.
(explanation: Most pre-1990 literature on businesses' consider IT as success.
Late 1980s : economists spoke “ productivity paradox.
Example: In the retail industry, Productivity growth to 1.1 from 2.4%.
Proponents argue:
need time and investment. After 19902 can see benefits.
who knows without IT they may not have even grew at 1.1%
Even claims: improved productivity indirectly for service sectors)
Part2: Now counter argument (another topic): What is meaning of competitive advantage in actual?
(Explanation: Why not bring competitive advantages?
Now discussion on what is meaning of competitive advantage: economically
⠀⠀⠀ valuable, relatively scarce, and not easily replicated. (Resource-based theory))
part3: Now connecting competitive advantage with IT: IT alone may not bring competitive advantages but with complex resources such as HR it can bring IT advantages.
(Explanation: IT is easy to acquire so not competitive .But weaken some firms positions. HR can improve performance and merge with IT, can gain some advantages. What is finding says: support Resource based theory .advantage s form complex intangible resources)
Overall Summary: Basically the value of IT and clarification with competitive advantage.
Quote:
Try solving the question by yourself now:
1. The passage is primarily concerned with
(A) describing a resource and indicating various methods used to study it
What could be resource ? IT , What methods did we study IT? - We studied but we didnt indicate various methods.
(B) presenting a theory and offering an opposing point of view
What theory? Resource based theory. What opposting point of view? No author favours this point of view.
(C) providing an explanation for unexpected findings
Explanation: yes; What unexpected findings? : IT is competitive ? was it unexpected finidng? let us look back at para.
But some observers questioned why, if IT had conferred economic value, it did not produce direct competitive advantages for individual firms.
(D) demonstrating why a particular theory is unfounded
Why part is not mentioned , Just based on observations and studies.
(E) resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology
there are no parties arguing . But author expresses his thoughts and trying to conclude the para
Was it helpful? Enjoyed solving the Q?
CEO
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 2515
Given Kudos: 1976
Concentration: Finance, Technology
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Re: Most pre-1990 literature on businesses' use of information technology
[#permalink]
05 Apr 2021, 15:19
05 Apr 2021, 15:19
GMATNinja wrote:
Question #3
kirudang wrote:
Question 3: We all know that the example is for paradox
However, there is 1 contender: E: counter the argument that IT could potentially create competitive advantage
-> This is also true
Is that just because B is more direct, so it's winner here?
Thank you
However, there is 1 contender: E: counter the argument that IT could potentially create competitive advantage
-> This is also true
Is that just because B is more direct, so it's winner here?
Thank you
To rule out (E) for question #3, take another look at the exact language of the question:
Quote:
3. The author of the passage discusses productivity in the retail industry in the first paragraph primarily in order to...
The question doesn't ask us which answer choice is true. Instead, it asks us WHY the author chose to discuss productivity in the retail industry.
Looking at the passage as a whole, the author:
- -Introduces a paradox
-Discusses the retail industry as an example of the paradox
-Provides one viewpoint to explain the paradox
-Provides a second viewpoint to explain the paradox
From this, it is clear that the author discusses the retail industry primarily in order to 'provide an illustration of the "productivity paradox.'"
So, while this discussion may ALSO happen to "counter the argument that IT could potentially create competitive advantage," that's not why the author included it in the passage.
By closely reading the actual question, you can eliminate (E) and go with (B) as the answer to question #3.
I hope that helps!
Hi GMATNinja
Thanks for the nice explanation.
Can I eliminate choice E by simply seeing the words like below?
Choice E used the weak word could potentially create, but there is no weak word (could, may, may be, may not be) in the specified location where (in the first para) productivity has been used. So, the word does not match!
Can you share your thought, please?
