Kartikeya40
In Q.7, How is III (A manager takes action without being able to articulate reasons for that particular action.) correct? If it's correct, why is this answer incorrect in Q.1 (The option is Managers cannot justify their intuitive decisions.)
Fun question! According to the third paragraph, the intuitive style makes "thinking inseparable from acting." This is what line 45 is referring to when it describes "think/acting cycles." Reading on, we learn than managers frequently "act first and explain later."
Let's now consider Q7:
Quote:
It can be inferred from the passage that “thinking/acting cycles” (line 45) in managerial practice would be likely to result in which of the following?
I. A manager analyzes a network of problems and then acts on the basis of that analysis.
Notice this is specifically asking us to consider the phrase "think/acting cycles." We know that this phrase refers to a situation where thinking and acting are inseparable, and where managers often "act first and explain later." This rules out the statement above. Because in the "think/acting cycles," the managers do not analyze first and THEN act. The acting and analyzing are mixed together. So much so that managers sometimes act BEFORE explaining their action.
Let's now take a look at Q1:
Quote:
1. The passage provides support for which of the following statements?
(B) Managers cannot justify their intuitive decisions.
Given what we said about thinking/acting cycles, why is (B) wrong?
Well, notice that the "thinking/acting cycle" doesn't mean that managers
cannot justify their intuitive decisions. Remember, the passage tells us that managers often "act first and explain later." And if they can "explain later," that suggests they are eventually able to justify their decisions, even if they didn't analyze much to begin with.
So even if managers act without analyzing sometimes, that doesn't mean they CAN'T justify their decisions in the end. For that reason, (B) is wrong.
I hope that helps!