Transnational cooperation among corporations is experiencing a modest

To say that transnational cooperation is experiencing a modest Renaissance means two things:

1. At some point in the distant past transnational cooperation was very common. A modest Renaissance
implies that transnational cooperation is starting to become common again but not as common
as it was in the distant past.

2. In the recent past, transnational cooperation was not common. Now it is experience a modest
Renaissance meaning it is becoming more common.

Putting these two piece of information together we get (C):

"Transnational cooperation has in the past been both more common and less common than it is now among United States firms."


As for (A), remember the question is asking us for "information provided in the passage." Nowhere does the passage describe projects that are too big to handle.

(A) is tempting because it describes something that is true in the real world (i.e. some projects are too big for one company to handle), and is commonsensical. Indeed the answer choice may accord with your own experience.

However, the answer must be based solely on the information based in the passage.

Hope that helps
_________________

IMO... C

A - never says too big, just less profitable
B - statement says nothing of performance
C - winner winner chicken dinner
D - they ARE profitable... just less so and are still better than the $0 theyd get otherwise
E- if a comapny turns a proft, dont you think theys benefit?

N-e-ways, C is right bc for there to be a renaissance there had to be a period of prosperity, followed by decline and now it is up again.

get it?

how does renaissance mean 'more common or less common'?

Imagine the history of the world.
During the Roman Empire you have prosperity, lavishness, architecture, art. You have lots of its.
Then come the Christians, **** everything up, nothing happens for 1000 words. You have nothing
Then comes the Renaissance, when you once again have literature, architecture, kind of Humans rights..

So, to apply it in this case, since it is stated you have a "renaissance" of transnational business, it means you had plenty of it at some point, none of ot later, and now you notice a new "awakening" of that business". So, at some point, you had more of it and at some point you had less of it, Hence C

Transnational cooperation among corporations is experiencing a modest renaissance among United States firms, even though projects undertaken by two or more corporations under a collaborative agreement are less profitable than projects undertaken by a single corporation. The advantage of transnational cooperation is that such joint international projects may allow United States firms to win foreign contracts that they would not otherwise be able to win.

Type - Inference
- Transnational cooperation is experiencing a rebirth even thought they are less profitable
- May allow US firms to win foreign contracts that they would not have otherwise won.

Which of the following is information provided by the passage?

(A) Transnational cooperation involves projects too big for a single corporation to handle. Out of scope
(B) Transnational cooperation results in a pooling of resources leading to high-quality performance. There is no mention about high quality performance
(C) Transnational cooperation has in the past been both more common and less common than it is now among United States firms. Correct - experiencing a modest renaissance
(D) Joint projects between United States and foreign corporations are not profitable enough to be worth undertaking. Incorrect - this goes a little too far . Such projects may not be as profitable as when undertaken by a single cooperation .
(E) Joint projects between United States and foreign corporations benefit only those who commission the projects. Out of scope

Answer C
_________________

How could a thing be "both more common and less common" at the same time?

Either more common or less common doesn't sound better?

I got confused here with that.


Thank you in advance.

Could anyone explain the argument? I couldn't understand what is modest renaissance and how two or more corporations linked with less profitability?

Thanks in advance.

A "renaissance", in this context, is a "revival" or "rebirth", and here "modest" means "limited in size, amount, or scope." For example, if I said that soccer is experiencing a modest renaissance in the United States, it would mean that soccer is becoming somewhat more popular and/or successful. It would not mean that soccer has suddenly exploded and become as popular as American football.

Similarly, in this passage, transnational cooperation among corporations is experiencing a "limited revival" among US firms, even though such cooperation usually results in lower profits. The advantage of the cooperation is that it will help US firms win more foreign contracts in the future (contracts that those firms would not have won if they had not cooperated on joint international projects). In other words, cooperating on a project might not be as profitable as doing it on your own, but it will help you win more foreign contracts.

Also, to respond to a much earlier question:

... the key is the use of the present perfect in choice (C): "Transnational cooperation has in the past been both more common and less common than it is now among United States firms." The action began in the past and is still occurring in the present, which means that there could have been changes over time.

For example, "In the past three years, the British Pound has been worth both more than $1.4 USD and less than $1.4 USD." The price of a British Pound has changed over the course of the past three years. Sometimes it was less than $1.4 USD; sometimes it was more than $1.4 USD.

In choice (C), we are comparing past levels of cooperation to current levels of cooperation. At times, there was less cooperation than there is now; other times, there was more cooperation than there is now.

I hope that helps! For more timely responses, feel free to use the request verbal experts' reply button.
_________________

(A) Transnational cooperation involves projects too big for a single corporation to handle. - Incorrect. "too big" is not mentioned in stimulus.

(B) Transnational cooperation results in a pooling of resources leading to high-quality performance. - Incorrect. " resource pooling" is not mentioned in stimulus.

(C) Transnational cooperation has in the past been both more common and less common than it is now among United States firms. - Correct . "renaissance" is mentioned in stimulus.

(D) Joint projects between United States and foreign corporations are not profitable enough to be worth undertaking. - Incorrect. "not profitable" is not mentioned in stimulus. It is less profitable but not completely unprofitable.

(E) Joint projects between United States and foreign corporations benefit only those who commission the projects. - Incorrect. "only those who commission the projects" is not mentioned in stimulus.


Answer: (C).

Language betrayed me in this question.
_________________

Here's my approach. We need to find an answer choice that must be true if the given pieces of information given are true. 2 points need considering here.

(1) "RENAISSANCE" is about the RE-rise of something that once ROSE AND FELL earlier (eg. the rise and fall of the Roman Empire)
(2) But what if the peak level of transnational cooperation among US firms in the past is still LOWER than the current level? If so, we could not say that "Transnational cooperation has in the past been BOTH MORE common and LESS common than it is now among United States firms". Here comes the modifier "MODEST" in "modest renaissance". So, transnational cooperation is NOW just somewhat more common than WHEN it fell earlier but is still less common than when it was at peak.

Hence, (C) is correct

I choose the wrong answer because of language, how can some solve this question without knowing the meaning of word "Renaissance"? it seems like whole question is dependent on this single word.

Hi @

(E) Joint projects between United States and foreign corporations benefit only those who commission the projects.

E means that only those corporations benefit which were involved in the projects. Is n't it true that other corporation can not benefit if they are not involved in the project?. Even they are in loss, it is joint sharing . SImilarly benefit only to involved parties.

Please give your opinion on rejecting E mira93, nightblade354, carouselambra dcummins ExpertsGlobal5 gmat1393 GMATGuruNY GMATinsight ottocento

Hi,
Please have a look at the last line of the passage :
The advantage of transnational cooperation is that such joint international projects may allow United States firms to win foreign contracts that they would not otherwise be able to win.

#1 We are not sure whether joint international projects will DEFINITELY win the US some foreign contracts - we are just presuming
#2 Why are we presuming? Because some factor (joint projects) would be better than that factor(single project)
#3 No where in the passage are the words/hints around "commission" or benefit mentioned

Now coming to option (E)
Joint projects between United States and foreign corporations benefit only those who commission the projects.


Now, go back to #1 - Are we sure it will benefit? Are you sure about the person/organization who has commissioned the project?
None of this has been mentioned in the passage hence (E) can be eliminated.

Cheers!

I don't know if you are still preparing for Gmat but my opinion on this is that Renaissance implies Revival and revival can only be done when the state of a particular thing, on a high level, has fallen.

Kudos, please!!!

Please refer to the diagram in the file attached. What option C is saying is basically a general statement about a zig zag trend curve. Modest renaissance basically means an uptick in the trend again.

Can someone explain why Option E is wrong? I understand that C is correct.

The question asks which answer choice is "information provided by the passage."

Here's (E):

The word "only" stands out. Does the passage tell us that the ONLY people who benefit from transnational cooperation are those who commission the project?

Nope, that goes way too far. First of all, the cooperative projects might not be as profitable as solo projects, but they could still be beneficial to the corporations involved. Maybe these corporations still make a ton of money, even if it's less than they make on solo projects.

We also have no idea who else might benefit from cooperative projects. For example, perhaps the end-users get a much higher quality product from these kinds of deals.

There simply isn't enough information in the passage to say that the ONLY people who benefit are those who commissioned the project. That's why you can eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!
_________________

Can someone explain why Option D is wrong? Most of the explanations focus on "not profitable" part, but the choice actually clearly states "not profitable enough". Isn't this same as saying less profitable?

I am not comfortable eliminating option D for simply stating "not profitable". Is there any other reason why D does not work?