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
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Today we have again brought GMAT Ninja live to discuss a burning issue - how to study for the competition exams such as GMAT or CAT while working full time. We all are busy working professionals;
Use code ACTION20 at checkout. Act fast! This discount ends April 15, 2024. Valid on Complete Course, Advanced Course, On Demand Course, Bootcamp Course, Tutoring, and Executive Assessment Course.
András Domschitz recently scored 735 (99.5%) on the GMAT Focus Edition. In this video, we discuss his GMAT Focus study plan and techniques and how TTP’s self-study course helped him achieve an incredible 735 score on the GMAT Edition.
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.
After just 3 months of studying with the TTP GMAT Focus course, Conner scored an incredible 755 (Q89/V90/DI83) on the GMAT Focus. In this live interview, he shares how he achieved his outstanding 755 (100%) GMAT Focus score on test day.
Paragraph 1) In corporate purchasing, competitive scrutiny
[#permalink]
12 Feb 2013, 23:51
Paragraph 1) In corporate purchasing, competitive scrutiny is typically limited to suppliers of items that are directly related to end products. (5) With “indirect” purchases (such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production, corporations often favor “supplier partnerships” (10) (arrangements in which the purchaser forgoes the right to pursue alternative suppliers), which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny (15) that might afford the purchaser economic leverage. There are two independent variables—availability of alternatives and ease of changing suppliers—that companies should (20) use to evaluate the feasibility of subjecting suppliers of indirect purchases to competitive scrutiny. This can create four possible situations.
(25) In Type 1 situations, there are many alternatives and change is relatively easy. Open pursuit of alternatives—by frequent com- petitive bidding, if possible—will (30) likely yield the best results. In Type 2 situations, where there are many alternatives but change is difficult—as for providers of employee health-care benefits—it (35) is important to continuously test the market and use the results to secure concessions from existing suppliers. Alternatives provide a credible threat to suppliers, even if (40) the ability to switch is constrained. In Type 3 situations, there ate few alternatives, but the ability to switch without difficulty creates a threat that companies can use to negotiate (45) concessions from existing suppliers. In Type 4 situations, where there are few alternatives and change is difficult, partnerships may be unavoidable.
Q35: Which of the following best describes the relation of the second paragraph to the first? •The second paragraph offers proof of an assertion made in the first paragraph. •The second paragraph provides an explanation for the occurrence of a situation described in the first paragraph. •The second paragraph discusses the application of a strategy proposed in the first paragraph. •The second paragraph examines the scope of a problem presented in the first paragraph. •The second paragraph discusses the contradictions inherent in a relationship described in the first paragraph. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q36: Which of the following can be inferred about supplier partnerships, as they are described in the passage? •They cannot be sustained unless the goods or services provided are available from a large number of suppliers. •They can result in purchasers paying more for goods and services than they would in a competitive-bidding situation. •They typically are instituted at the urging of the supplier rather than the purchaser. •They are not feasible when the goods or services provided are directly related to the purchasers’ end products. •They are least appropriate when the purchasers’ ability to change suppliers is limited. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q37: According to the passage, which of the following factors distinguishes an indirect purchase from other purchases? •The ability of the purchasing company to subject potential suppliers of the purchased item to competitive scrutiny •The number of suppliers of the purchased item available to the purchasing company •The methods of negotiation that are available to the purchasing company •The relationship of the purchased item to the purchasing company’s end product •The degree of importance of the purchased item in the purchasing company’s business operations
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Re: Paragraph 1) In corporate purchasing, competitive scrutiny
[#permalink]
13 Feb 2013, 01:05
roopika2990 wrote:
Paragraph 1) In corporate purchasing, competitive scrutiny is typically limited to suppliers of items that are directly related to end products. (5) With “indirect” purchases (such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production, corporations often favor “supplier partnerships” (10) (arrangements in which the purchaser forgoes the right to pursue alternative suppliers), which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny (15) that might afford the purchaser economic leverage. There are two independent variables—availability of alternatives and ease of changing suppliers—that companies should (20) use to evaluate the feasibility of subjecting suppliers of indirect purchases to competitive scrutiny. This can create four possible situations.
(25) In Type 1 situations, there are many alternatives and change is relatively easy. Open pursuit of alternatives—by frequent com- petitive bidding, if possible—will (30) likely yield the best results. In Type 2 situations, where there are many alternatives but change is difficult—as for providers of employee health-care benefits—it (35) is important to continuously test the market and use the results to secure concessions from existing suppliers. Alternatives provide a credible threat to suppliers, even if (40) the ability to switch is constrained. In Type 3 situations, there ate few alternatives, but the ability to switch without difficulty creates a threat that companies can use to negotiate (45) concessions from existing suppliers. In Type 4 situations, where there are few alternatives and change is difficult, partnerships may be unavoidable.
Q35: Which of the following best describes the relation of the second paragraph to the first? •The second paragraph offers proof of an assertion made in the first paragraph. •The second paragraph provides an explanation for the occurrence of a situation described in the first paragraph. •The second paragraph discusses the application of a strategy proposed in the first paragraph. •The second paragraph examines the scope of a problem presented in the first paragraph. •The second paragraph discusses the contradictions inherent in a relationship described in the first paragraph. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q36: Which of the following can be inferred about supplier partnerships, as they are described in the passage? •They cannot be sustained unless the goods or services provided are available from a large number of suppliers. •They can result in purchasers paying more for goods and services than they would in a competitive-bidding situation. •They typically are instituted at the urging of the supplier rather than the purchaser. •They are not feasible when the goods or services provided are directly related to the purchasers’ end products. •They are least appropriate when the purchasers’ ability to change suppliers is limited. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q37: According to the passage, which of the following factors distinguishes an indirect purchase from other purchases? •The ability of the purchasing company to subject potential suppliers of the purchased item to competitive scrutiny •The number of suppliers of the purchased item available to the purchasing company •The methods of negotiation that are available to the purchasing company •The relationship of the purchased item to the purchasing company’s end product •The degree of importance of the purchased item in the purchasing company’s business operations
I am not sure of answer to question 36, I feel this is an answer that is directly stated in the passage so not sure why this can be an inference. I chose option D. Can anyone elaborate on this.
Re: Paragraph 1) In corporate purchasing, competitive scrutiny
[#permalink]
14 Feb 2013, 00:54
Hi David,
I'm not sure it is stated directly. The key sentence for me is
which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny that might afford the purchaser economic leverage.
This to me is not a direct re-statement of the answer B, and you do infact need to do a little 'inferring' to get from this sentence to B.
As for answer D, I would say this is directly in the passage in the below section: In corporate purchasing, competitive scrutiny is typically limited to suppliers of items that are directly related to end products. With “indirect” purchases (such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production, corporations often favor “supplier partnerships”
Re: Paragraph 1) In corporate purchasing, competitive scrutiny
[#permalink]
14 Feb 2013, 23:40
I miss the first question how to solve the main idea/global question efffectively. I can not differentiate among many verb or noun. the answers are close? pls help
this is typical of easy passage and hard question. we can read the passage quickly but it is time consuming to answer the questions which is hard.
What are the official answers for these questions?
OAs please.
Thanks.
Q35: Which of the following best describes the relation of the second paragraph to the first? •The second paragraph offers proof of an assertion made in the first paragraph.second paragraph simply elaborate two independent variables with four possible situation in terms of possible economic leverage. Therefore,author nowhere compare proof of assertion made in first paragraph •The second paragraph provides an explanation for the occurrence of a situation described in the first paragraph.four possible situations are elaborated in second paragraph ,there is no explanation provided for situation described in first paragraph. •The second paragraph discusses the application of a strategy proposed in the first paragraph.yes,the author introduces both the direct and indirect purchasing- further proposes strategy with its elaboration of possibilities in second paragraph but please note the difference in OPTION C vs E "discusses the contradictions Vs application" hence this is wrong •The second paragraph examines the scope of a problem presented in the first paragraph.this is very close to option C but there are two major changes in problem statement i.e. "examine Vs discuss" & "scope Vs Strategy" . Four possible situations are discussed rather than examined . The second paragraph discusses the contradictions inherent in a relationship described in the first paragraph.this is correct option, as the author clearly mentions the two independent variable and discuss the contradiction with reference to overall economical leverage possibilities
OA please ?? 35) E (Explanation already provided in my last post , no energy left for typing 10 more options :sleeping: ) 36) D 38) C waiting for some valuable suggestions,i know am not born intelligent :panel :beer
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
gmatclubot
Re: Paragraph 1) In corporate purchasing, competitive scrutiny [#permalink]