HI, there. I'm happy to help with this.
First of all, "according to the author" and "according to the passage" are essentially the same thing, as least as far as GMAT RC is concerned. I wouldn't worry about that distinction.
Prompt:
According to the passage, early chartered trading companies are usually described asSo, what does the paragraph say about these early charted trading companies?
Paragraph one = modern multinationals, and mentions only that, "
Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century chartered trading companies, despite the international scope of their activities, are usually considered irrelevant to this discussion."
Paragraph two = a cogent argument about why the early charted trading companies are relevant to the discussion of modern multinationals. Folks often say they're irrelevant, but this passage argues otherwise.
Paragraph three = differences between early charted trading companies and & modern multinationals.
The main point of the passage:
early chartered trading companies should be more seriously considered by scholars studying the origins of modern multinationals (this is Q1, answer C)
In every question, the main point of the passage should be kept in mind. Even details are mentioned to support a main point.
Now, the answer choices for Q4:
(A) irrelevant to a discussion of the origins of the modern multinational corporationYes, not only is this often argued, but in this passage, this author goes to great efforts to argue against it. The fact that he has to present such a strong argument why the early chartered trading companies are
relevant is that most folks simply assume that they were irrelevant. Does that make sense? This is a very strong answer.
(B) interesting but ultimately too unusual to be good subjects for economic study This contradicts the point of the passage --- the author says that studying the early chartered trading companies would be relevant and could be helpful in the economic study of modern multinationals. Contradicts the main point = OUT.
(C) analogues of nineteenth-century British trading firmsWeak. Yes, I suppose in some sense the 16- &17-cent chartered trading companies are analogues of the nineteenth-century British trading firms, but that's more or less irrelevant to the main point the author is making. In the study of modern multinationals, everyone looks at the nineteenth-century British trading firms and no one looks at the early chartered trading companies, and this author is saying: Wait! Look at the early chartered trading companies too. The point is not really about making sense of the nineteenth-century British trading firms --- it's about making sense of our modern multinationals. Irrelevant to main point = OUT
(D) rudimentary and very early forms of the modern multinational corporationThis contradicts the point of the passage ---- usually, when folks talk about where modern multinationals began, they look to the 19th cent, not to the early chartered trading companies. The early chartered trading companies get completely overlooked in the discussion of where the modern multinational corporation began. This author is trying to change that, but he is arguing against the irrelevance to which others have consigned the early chartered trading companies. Contradicts the main point = OUT
(E) important national institutions because they existed to further the political aims of the governments of their home countriesUnclear. This passage is a discussion about the origin of the modern multinational corporation, and the author is arguing that early chartered trading companies are relevant to this discussion. This is an economic discussion, delving into historical economic. ------ in Par. 3, when the author discusses differences between early chartered trading companies and modern multinationals, he mentions as a detail: "
[The early chartered trading companies] depended heavily on the national governments of their home countries and thus characteristically acted abroad to promote national interests.." Does that make them important? Well, perhaps in another context, in a political discussion about the promotion of national interests in an international context -- in that discussion, this factoid might be important. Here, though, that's not the focus at all. This is about economics & economic history. The author is making a particular argument about how the early chartered trading companies are important in the study of the origins of modern multinationals. How the early chartered trading companies promoted the interests of their respective home countries is not of importance in this discussion. It might be important in another discussion, again, something about politics and international relationship, but not here. Therefore, according to this passage, in this context, it's not important. E is OUT.
(A) is a strong answer, and the other four are, for one reason or another, unacceptable. Therefore, (A) must be the correct answer.
Do not underestimate the importance of the main point of any passage. There will always be a question asking about the main point, but all other questions will, in one way or another, harken back to the themes of the main point.
Does all this make sense?
Here's another RC question, for further practice.
https://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/767When you submit your answer, the next page will have a complete video explanation of the question. Each of
Magoosh's 800+ GMAT questions has its own video solution.
Magoosh also has 200 lesson videos, including a whole series on GMAT RC. I suggest that
Magoosh could offer you invaluable assistance in your GMAT preparation.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Mike

How is according to author and according to the passage is same? Here according to the passage early trading companies are redundant for discussion because there's no similarity between the early trading companies and MNCs. but according to the author, we see some similarity between the two and suggest further study on the same