RC: Confusion between 2 answer choices

[soumya_165]

The United States government has a long-standing policy of using federal funds to keep small business viable. The Small Business Act of 1953 authorized the Small Business Administration (SBA) to enter into contracts with government agencies having procurement powers and to arrange for fulfillment of these contracts by awarding subcontracts to small businesses. In the mid-1960's, during the war on poverty years, Congress hoped to encourage minority entrepreneurs by directing such funding to minority businesses. At first this funding was directed toward minority entrepreneurs with very low incomes. A 1967 amendment to the Economic Opportunity Act directed the SBA to pay special attention to minority-owned businesses located in urban or rural areas characterized by high proportions of unemployed or low-income individuals. Since then, the answer given to the fundamental question of who the recipients should be--the most economically disadvantaged or those with the best prospects for business success--has changed, and the social goals of the programs have shifted, resulting in policy changes.


The first shift occurred during the early 1970's. While the goal of assisting the economically disadvantaged entrepreneur remained, a new goal emerged: to remedy the effects of past discrimination. In fact, in 1970 the SBA explicitly stated that their main goal was to increase the number of minority-owned businesses. At the time, minorities constituted seventeen percent of the nation's population, but only four percent of the nation's self-employed. This ownership gap was held to be the result of past discrimination. Increasing the number of minority-owned firms was seen as a way to remedy this problem. In that context, providing funding to minority entrepreneurs in middle- and high-income brackets seemed justified.

In the late 1970's, the goals of minority-business funding programs shifted again. At the Minority Business Development Agency, for example, the goal of increasing numbers of minority-owned firms was supplanted by the goal of creating and assisting more minority-owned substantive firms with future growth potential. Assisting manufacturers or wholesalers became far more important than assisting small service businesses. Minority-business funding programs were now justified as instruments for economic development, particularly for creating jobs in minority communities of high unemployment.

According to the passage, in 1970 funding to minority entrepreneurs focused primarily on which of the following?

A: Alleviating chronic unemployment in urban areas
B: Narrowing the ownership gap
C: Assisting minority-owned businesses with growth potential
D: Awarding subcontracts to businesses that encouraged community development
E: Targeting the most economically disadvantaged minority-owned businesses


In the above question, the official answer is B. But both para 2 and para 3 covers point B and C

According to the passage the main reason for funding in early 70's (para 2) was to narrow the gap and the main reason for funding in late 70's (para 3) was to create and assist more minority-owned substantive firms with future growth potential

[RonPurewal]

The question says "In 1970". It doesn't say "In the 1970's", which seems to be where your thoughts are going here.

Choice B has to do with 1970; in fact, the exact year 1970 is explicitly mentioned in the relevant text.
Choice C focuses on the late 1970's. Not 1970 at all.

Focus!

[RonPurewal]

And... Slow down!

I would bet $1000's that you misread "1970" as "the 1970's" because you were trying to go too fast.

As the U.S. Marines say... Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast.
They have a good point.

[soumya_165]

Thanks Ron. I realized my mistake. I misread 1970 as 1970's. I will keep this in mind and will try to read carefully during my Exam. things like this are the most important in the Exam.

[RonPurewal]

Thanks Ron. I realized my mistake. I misread 1970 as 1970's. I will keep this in mind and will try to read carefully during my Exam. things like this are the most important in the Exam.

As long as "carefully" means SLOWLY... this is the right idea.

If you try to "rush" the reading, you WILL miss important things.
That's "will". Not "might" or "could".

[OliverC630]

Hi Ron, I have one more question regarding the same passage:

Which of the following best describes the function of the second paragraph in the passage as a whole?
A.It narrows the scope of the topic introduced in the first paragraph.
B.It presents an example of the type of change discussed in the first paragraph.
C.It cites the most striking instance of historical change in a particular government policy.
D.It explains the rational for the creation of the government agency whose operations are discussed in the first paragraph.
E.It presents the results of policies adopted by the federal government.

OA is B. I selected E.
In my understanding, structure of the passage is arranged in the chronological order, namely 1960s (1st paragraph) beginning 1970s (2nd paragraph) late 1970s (3rd paragraph). In this sense, I took E.

[RonPurewal]

There are no "results" in the second paragraph. None at all.

The second paragraph just talks about which things were seen as high priorities, and so on. It describes the inspiration behind certain changes in government policy, but certainly not any results of such changes.

[RonPurewal]

OA is B. I selected E.
In my understanding, structure of the passage is arranged in the chronological order, namely 1960s (1st paragraph) beginning 1970s (2nd paragraph) late 1970s (3rd paragraph). In this sense, I took E.

I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost here. I don't see any relationship at all between the pink stuff and the green thing.

[750plus]

Dear Team,

Why can't the answer to the above question be A ?

[750plus]

Team,

Please help me with this question -

It can be inferred that the "ownership gap" (see highlighted text) would be narrowed if which of the following were to occur?

(A) Minority entrepreneurs received a percentage of government contracts equal to that received by nonminority entrepreneurs.
(B) Middle- and high-income minority entrepreneurs gave more assistance to their low-income counterparts in the business community.
(C) Minority entrepreneurs hired a percentage of minority employees equal to the percentage of minority residents in their own communities.
(D) The percentage of self-employed minority persons rose to more than ten percent of all self-employed persons.
(E) Seventeen percent of all persons employed in small businesses were self-employed.

I picked A here. I couldn't find any appropriate answer.

This is the text I was looking into - ' Increasing the number of minority-owned firms was seen as a way to remedy this problem. In that context, providing funding to minority entrepreneurs in middle- and high-income brackets seemed justified '

Warm Regards
Rajat Gugnani

[RonPurewal]

you're looking at the wrong text.

THE TASK is this:

It can be inferred that the "ownership gap" (see highlighted text) would be narrowed if which of the following were to occur?

this has NOTHING to do with historical attempts. this question deals purely with how the 'gap' is defined. really, that's it.

'the gap' is defined in the previous sentence:
minorities constituted seventeen percent of the nation's population, but only four percent of the nation's self-employed

17 is greater than 4.

how could this be narrowed? well, mathematically, there are only 2 possibilities: make the '17' smaller, or make the '4' bigger.

clearly, we can't lower the '17'. (this would entail either killing people or forcing them to emigrate. obviously neither of these is an option.)

so THE ONLY WAY TO NARROW this 'gap' is to RAISE the '4 percent' figure.

that's exactly what choice D does.

(the only important thing about '10' is that it's between 4 and 17. they could have put any other number between 4 and 17 in choice D, and it would work just as well.)

[NarenS469]

Hi Ron,

For this question "It can be inferred that the "ownership gap" (see highlighted text) would be narrowed if which of the following were to occur?"

Can I eliminate A based on the below reasoning?

- Minority received the contracts but there is not guarantee that they will take up those contracts, so percentage can't go up.

Is there any other reason to eliminate A?

Thanks,

Naren

[Gaurav@GMAT]

how could this be narrowed? well, mathematically, there are only 2 possibilities: make the '17' smaller, or make the '4' bigger.

Thanks for explanation Ron, I never thought that RC passages would involve such mathematical approach -- although it is common in IR.

[RonPurewal]

how could this be narrowed? well, mathematically, there are only 2 possibilities: make the '17' smaller, or make the '4' bigger.

Thanks for explanation Ron, I never thought that RC passages would involve such mathematical approach -- although it is common in IR.

well, it's not very mathematically sophisticated—it's just 'these two numbers are far apart; how could we get them closer together?'

if you're doing anything more mathematically involved than that (on an RC problem) then, whatever that might be, you probably shouldn't be doing it. (:

[NarenS469]

you're looking at the wrong text.

THE TASK is this:

It can be inferred that the "ownership gap" (see highlighted text) would be narrowed if which of the following were to occur?

this has NOTHING to do with historical attempts. this question deals purely with how the 'gap' is defined. really, that's it.

----

Hi Ron,

Can I eliminate A based on the below reasoning?

- Minority received the contracts but there is not guarantee that they will take up those contracts, so percentage can't go up.

Is there any other reason to eliminate A?

Thanks,

Naren

p.s. : earlier poster posted before the question was answered. re-posting just to ensure it was not overlooked.thanks