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.
Jun 0308:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 7 of our GMAT Ninja CR series, we are rounding up the oddballs, the misfits, and the format-benders: EXCEPT, Fill-In-The-Blanks, and other unusual Critical Reasoning question types. When you see a question that ends with a literal blank line
May 2910:00 AM IST
-11:00 PM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.- Jun 02
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Probability is one of the most important GMAT Quant topics because it often combines logic, counting, set theory, and permutations & combinations. Many students try to solve probability questions by listing every possible case, but GMAT probability... - Jun 04
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
For most test takers, Data Insights is the most challenging section on the GMAT, with test takers scoring several points lower on average on DI than on Quant or Verbal and completing the section with less time to spare. - Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
02 Jun 2026, 17:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
Established manufacturers face a tension between exploiting their existing capabilities, in service of short-term profits, exploring new opportunities with an eye to long-term viability. Exploitation goals include constructive dialogue with existing clients, together with the at-scale improvement of products and manufacturing techniques that the dialogue informs. Exploration includes experimental refinement, or creation from scratch, of product prototypes and manufacturing processes, as well as preparatory analysis of and outreach into potential new markets.
Exploration and exploitation ultimately must compete for a firm’s managerial and capital resources. Maldonado showed that firms allocating too many resources to exploitation, while nearly always exceptionally productive and cost-efficient in the immediate term, face high probabilities of insolvency as markets evolve. Conversely, De La Cruz showed that excess allocation in the opposite direction causes firms to accumulate more provisional technologies than they can possibly commercialize, and therefore to spread research and development resources far too thinly across those technologies, while also struggling to meet absolute minimum production figures. Executives must guide their companies to the optimal balance in between.
Some manufacturers have chartered functionally separate, largely autonomous company divisions known as “skunkworks” to address exploration goals. These operate at a remove from short-term market fluctuations and their unpredictable-yet-always-urgent pressures on main production floors, so that their small teams can maintain the sharp collective focus that skunkworks were conceived to promote. Critics, however, claim that innovations from a sequestered unit cannot produce returns until they and their underlying knowledge base are integrated into the company’s mainstream operations, and that only then will both sides of the attempted knowledge transfer discover just how many significant communication, skill and culture gaps have opened up across the scrupulously maintained distance between the skunkworks and the main floor, rendering the integration process anywhere from tedious and exasperating at best, to actually impossible at worst,
In a second, newer approach to this overall question of balance, known as employee ambidexterity, individual employees choose independently how to allocate their time between exploitative and exploratory tasks. Proponents contend that this model fosters a culture of continuous innovation while preserving the unity and camaraderie of the corporation as a whole. Skeptics counter that without institutional buffers, short-term performance pressures will consistently crowd out exploratory activity, leaving the company’s long-term adaptive capacity to languish.
According to the passage, manufacturing corporations that allocate less than the optimal proportion of resources to exploration are likely to
A. find themselves in a highly favorable short-term financial position.
B. generate little profit overall as e result of insufficient aggregate technological capability.
C. have recently reduced total expenditure on their existing lines of production.
D. overspend on research and development for products that currently generate a profit.
E. weather large-scale changes in their respective markets better than firms that have committed a greater share of resources to existing exploration projects.
Exploration and exploitation ultimately must compete for a firm’s managerial and capital resources. Maldonado showed that firms allocating too many resources to exploitation, while nearly always exceptionally productive and cost-efficient in the immediate term, face high probabilities of insolvency as markets evolve. Conversely, De La Cruz showed that excess allocation in the opposite direction causes firms to accumulate more provisional technologies than they can possibly commercialize, and therefore to spread research and development resources far too thinly across those technologies, while also struggling to meet absolute minimum production figures. Executives must guide their companies to the optimal balance in between.
Some manufacturers have chartered functionally separate, largely autonomous company divisions known as “skunkworks” to address exploration goals. These operate at a remove from short-term market fluctuations and their unpredictable-yet-always-urgent pressures on main production floors, so that their small teams can maintain the sharp collective focus that skunkworks were conceived to promote. Critics, however, claim that innovations from a sequestered unit cannot produce returns until they and their underlying knowledge base are integrated into the company’s mainstream operations, and that only then will both sides of the attempted knowledge transfer discover just how many significant communication, skill and culture gaps have opened up across the scrupulously maintained distance between the skunkworks and the main floor, rendering the integration process anywhere from tedious and exasperating at best, to actually impossible at worst,
In a second, newer approach to this overall question of balance, known as employee ambidexterity, individual employees choose independently how to allocate their time between exploitative and exploratory tasks. Proponents contend that this model fosters a culture of continuous innovation while preserving the unity and camaraderie of the corporation as a whole. Skeptics counter that without institutional buffers, short-term performance pressures will consistently crowd out exploratory activity, leaving the company’s long-term adaptive capacity to languish.
According to the passage, manufacturing corporations that allocate less than the optimal proportion of resources to exploration are likely to
A. find themselves in a highly favorable short-term financial position.
B. generate little profit overall as e result of insufficient aggregate technological capability.
C. have recently reduced total expenditure on their existing lines of production.
D. overspend on research and development for products that currently generate a profit.
E. weather large-scale changes in their respective markets better than firms that have committed a greater share of resources to existing exploration projects.
02 Jun 2026, 17:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
Established manufacturers face a tension between exploiting their existing capabilities, in service of short-term profits, exploring new opportunities with an eye to long-term viability. Exploitation goals include constructive dialogue with existing clients, together with the at-scale improvement of products and manufacturing techniques that the dialogue informs. Exploration includes experimental refinement, or creation from scratch, of product prototypes and manufacturing processes, as well as preparatory analysis of and outreach into potential new markets.
Exploration and exploitation ultimately must compete for a firm’s managerial and capital resources. Maldonado showed that firms allocating too many resources to exploitation, while nearly always exceptionally productive and cost-efficient in the immediate term, face high probabilities of insolvency as markets evolve. Conversely, De La Cruz showed that excess allocation in the opposite direction causes firms to accumulate more provisional technologies than they can possibly commercialize, and therefore to spread research and development resources far too thinly across those technologies, while also struggling to meet absolute minimum production figures. Executives must guide their companies to the optimal balance in between.
Some manufacturers have chartered functionally separate, largely autonomous company divisions known as “skunkworks” to address exploration goals. These operate at a remove from short-term market fluctuations and their unpredictable-yet-always-urgent pressures on main production floors, so that their small teams can maintain the sharp collective focus that skunkworks were conceived to promote. Critics, however, claim that innovations from a sequestered unit cannot produce returns until they and their underlying knowledge base are integrated into the company’s mainstream operations, and that only then will both sides of the attempted knowledge transfer discover just how many significant communication, skill and culture gaps have opened up across the scrupulously maintained distance between the skunkworks and the main floor, rendering the integration process anywhere from tedious and exasperating at best, to actually impossible at worst,
In a second, newer approach to this overall question of balance, known as employee ambidexterity, individual employees choose independently how to allocate their time between exploitative and exploratory tasks. Proponents contend that this model fosters a culture of continuous innovation while preserving the unity and camaraderie of the corporation as a whole. Skeptics counter that without institutional buffers, short-term performance pressures will consistently crowd out exploratory activity, leaving the company’s long-term adaptive capacity to languish.
According to the passage, manufacturing corporations that allocate less than the optimal proportion of resources to exploration are likely to
A. find themselves in a highly favorable short-term financial position.
B. generate little profit overall as e result of insufficient aggregate technological capability.
C. have recently reduced total expenditure on their existing lines of production.
D. overspend on research and development for products that currently generate a profit.
E. weather large-scale changes in their respective markets better than firms that have committed a greater share of resources to existing exploration projects.
This is an “according to the passage” problem, so the correct answer should reiterate the content of a relevant statement from the passage, most likely with substantial changes in phrasing and word choices, but without any logical transformations of the type seen in the answers to IMPLY/INFER/SUGGEST questions.
The “optimal balance” here refers to the optimal allocations of a manufacturer’s managerial and capital resources to each of two fundamentally contrasting goals: exploitation of the manufacturer’s current product lines, versus exploration of new markets, methods or products for its future expansion or evolution.
These two categories together cover all of the manufacturer’s operations, so allocating more resources to exploration means allocating fewer to exploitation, and vice versa. Accordingly, if exploration expenditures “fall short of the proper balance”, i.e., if LESS than the optimal quantity of resources is being allocated to exploration, then EXCESS resources must currently be going to exploitation.
Thus, if we take an inventory of all stated consequences of
• not allocating enough resources to exploration
OR
• allocating too many resources to exploitation,
then the correct answer should repeat an item from this inventory using different words.
Take inventory:
Stated consequences of allocating TOO FEW resources to EXPLORATION:
None. (The author has phrased everything in terms of the excess allocation, whichever one that is.)
Stated consequences of allocating TOO MANY resources to EXPLOITATION:
• Exceptionally productive and cost-efficient in the short run
• Uncommonly likely to fail / go bankrupt or out of business (“ruin”) in the long run
The first of these bullet points, high productivity, coupled with low costs relative to production, is an essential formula for financially successful business operations, so the correct answer is choice A.
OTHER ANSWERS:
Option B: The single fact provided by the passage about firms in the situation described in the prompt is that they will enjoy high productivity and low unit costs (= high “cost efficiency”) in the immediate short term. This set of conditions is fundamentally in opposition to low profitability, so this choice is unsupported.
Option C: When recombined with the prompt, this choice says that manufacturers that are currently spending too much on exploiting their current products must be spending LESS on those current production lines than they were in the recent past, in other words, that the overspend on exploiting current products must have been even more severe not very long ago. There is no textual support for this, of course, although this statement is so absurd that you can eliminate it on the basis of plain common sense alone.
(Finally, we can notice that, if this statement WERE true, it would “crash” the overall logic by sending it into an infinite recursion: If the company is overspending on exploitation, then according to choice C, it must have been overspending even worse a short while ago. But then, applying choice B again, going back a little further it must have been overspending even worse than THAT. And then, choice C can be applied yet again... infinitely many times, in fact. That’s nonsense, so choice C can’t be correct.)
Option D: The author states that manufacturers that allocate too many resources to exploration, the opposite of the situation in this prompt, will spend too LITTLE money per technology (“spread [...] funds far too thinly”) on research and development for currently profitable technologies. At a glance, choice D may appear to be a simple rearrangement of the same statement, in roughly the same manner as x < y can be rewritten as y > x, and thus a tempting answer choice.
That reasoning fails, however, because the simple arithmetic that underlies the insufficient R&D spend in the cited statement, if total R&D spend is a finite number and there are too many separate technologies, then (total R&D spend)/(# of technologies) is going to be too low, does not work in reverse: Having too much R&D money for too few technologies does NOT guarantee that too much money will be spent on R&D per technology, because the company can just spend less than the maximum R&D budget. So, choice B is not supported by the passage.
To come back briefly to baseline fundamentals, we can cut off the above line of reasoning at the point where “this looks like a simple rearrangement...”, because that type of rearrangement is the single key feature of solutions to IMPLY/INFER/SUGGEST questions that will not appear in other detail-level questions (“according to the passage”, “the author/passage indicates”, etc).
Option E: The passage states that firms in the situation described by the prompt “face an unusually large probability of ruin” in the face of large-scale market evolution, which is the exact opposite of what this choice says.
Answer: A
Established manufacturers face a tension between exploiting their existing capabilities, in service of short-term profits, exploring new opportunities with an eye to long-term viability. Exploitation goals include constructive dialogue with existing clients, together with the at-scale improvement of products and manufacturing techniques that the dialogue informs. Exploration includes experimental refinement, or creation from scratch, of product prototypes and manufacturing processes, as well as preparatory analysis of and outreach into potential new markets.
Exploration and exploitation ultimately must compete for a firm’s managerial and capital resources. Maldonado showed that firms allocating too many resources to exploitation, while nearly always exceptionally productive and cost-efficient in the immediate term, face high probabilities of insolvency as markets evolve. Conversely, De La Cruz showed that excess allocation in the opposite direction causes firms to accumulate more provisional technologies than they can possibly commercialize, and therefore to spread research and development resources far too thinly across those technologies, while also struggling to meet absolute minimum production figures. Executives must guide their companies to the optimal balance in between.
Some manufacturers have chartered functionally separate, largely autonomous company divisions known as “skunkworks” to address exploration goals. These operate at a remove from short-term market fluctuations and their unpredictable-yet-always-urgent pressures on main production floors, so that their small teams can maintain the sharp collective focus that skunkworks were conceived to promote. Critics, however, claim that innovations from a sequestered unit cannot produce returns until they and their underlying knowledge base are integrated into the company’s mainstream operations, and that only then will both sides of the attempted knowledge transfer discover just how many significant communication, skill and culture gaps have opened up across the scrupulously maintained distance between the skunkworks and the main floor, rendering the integration process anywhere from tedious and exasperating at best, to actually impossible at worst,
In a second, newer approach to this overall question of balance, known as employee ambidexterity, individual employees choose independently how to allocate their time between exploitative and exploratory tasks. Proponents contend that this model fosters a culture of continuous innovation while preserving the unity and camaraderie of the corporation as a whole. Skeptics counter that without institutional buffers, short-term performance pressures will consistently crowd out exploratory activity, leaving the company’s long-term adaptive capacity to languish.
According to the passage, manufacturing corporations that allocate less than the optimal proportion of resources to exploration are likely to
A. find themselves in a highly favorable short-term financial position.
B. generate little profit overall as e result of insufficient aggregate technological capability.
C. have recently reduced total expenditure on their existing lines of production.
D. overspend on research and development for products that currently generate a profit.
E. weather large-scale changes in their respective markets better than firms that have committed a greater share of resources to existing exploration projects.
This is an “according to the passage” problem, so the correct answer should reiterate the content of a relevant statement from the passage, most likely with substantial changes in phrasing and word choices, but without any logical transformations of the type seen in the answers to IMPLY/INFER/SUGGEST questions.
The “optimal balance” here refers to the optimal allocations of a manufacturer’s managerial and capital resources to each of two fundamentally contrasting goals: exploitation of the manufacturer’s current product lines, versus exploration of new markets, methods or products for its future expansion or evolution.
These two categories together cover all of the manufacturer’s operations, so allocating more resources to exploration means allocating fewer to exploitation, and vice versa. Accordingly, if exploration expenditures “fall short of the proper balance”, i.e., if LESS than the optimal quantity of resources is being allocated to exploration, then EXCESS resources must currently be going to exploitation.
Thus, if we take an inventory of all stated consequences of
• not allocating enough resources to exploration
OR
• allocating too many resources to exploitation,
then the correct answer should repeat an item from this inventory using different words.
Take inventory:
Stated consequences of allocating TOO FEW resources to EXPLORATION:
None. (The author has phrased everything in terms of the excess allocation, whichever one that is.)
Stated consequences of allocating TOO MANY resources to EXPLOITATION:
• Exceptionally productive and cost-efficient in the short run
• Uncommonly likely to fail / go bankrupt or out of business (“ruin”) in the long run
The first of these bullet points, high productivity, coupled with low costs relative to production, is an essential formula for financially successful business operations, so the correct answer is choice A.
OTHER ANSWERS:
Option B: The single fact provided by the passage about firms in the situation described in the prompt is that they will enjoy high productivity and low unit costs (= high “cost efficiency”) in the immediate short term. This set of conditions is fundamentally in opposition to low profitability, so this choice is unsupported.
Option C: When recombined with the prompt, this choice says that manufacturers that are currently spending too much on exploiting their current products must be spending LESS on those current production lines than they were in the recent past, in other words, that the overspend on exploiting current products must have been even more severe not very long ago. There is no textual support for this, of course, although this statement is so absurd that you can eliminate it on the basis of plain common sense alone.
(Finally, we can notice that, if this statement WERE true, it would “crash” the overall logic by sending it into an infinite recursion: If the company is overspending on exploitation, then according to choice C, it must have been overspending even worse a short while ago. But then, applying choice B again, going back a little further it must have been overspending even worse than THAT. And then, choice C can be applied yet again... infinitely many times, in fact. That’s nonsense, so choice C can’t be correct.)
Option D: The author states that manufacturers that allocate too many resources to exploration, the opposite of the situation in this prompt, will spend too LITTLE money per technology (“spread [...] funds far too thinly”) on research and development for currently profitable technologies. At a glance, choice D may appear to be a simple rearrangement of the same statement, in roughly the same manner as x < y can be rewritten as y > x, and thus a tempting answer choice.
That reasoning fails, however, because the simple arithmetic that underlies the insufficient R&D spend in the cited statement, if total R&D spend is a finite number and there are too many separate technologies, then (total R&D spend)/(# of technologies) is going to be too low, does not work in reverse: Having too much R&D money for too few technologies does NOT guarantee that too much money will be spent on R&D per technology, because the company can just spend less than the maximum R&D budget. So, choice B is not supported by the passage.
To come back briefly to baseline fundamentals, we can cut off the above line of reasoning at the point where “this looks like a simple rearrangement...”, because that type of rearrangement is the single key feature of solutions to IMPLY/INFER/SUGGEST questions that will not appear in other detail-level questions (“according to the passage”, “the author/passage indicates”, etc).
Option E: The passage states that firms in the situation described by the prompt “face an unusually large probability of ruin” in the face of large-scale market evolution, which is the exact opposite of what this choice says.
Answer: A
