Reading - The general density dependence model can be

[vietst]

The general density dependence model can be applied to explain the founding of specialist firms (those attempting to serve a narrow target market). According to this model, specialist foundings hinge on the interplay between legitimation and competitive forces, both of which are functions of the density (total number) of firms in a particular specialist population. Legitimation occurs as a new type of firm moves from being viewed as unfamiliar to being viewed as a natural way to organize. At low density levels, each founding increases legitimation, reducing barriers to entry and easing subsequent foundings. Competition occurs because the resources that firms seek - customers, suppliers, and employees - are limited, but as long as density is low relative to plentiful resources, the addition of another firm has a negligible impact on the intensity of competition. At high density levels, however, competitive effects outweigh legitimation effects, discouraging foundings. The more numerous the competitors, the fiercer the competition will be and the smaller will be the incentive for new firms to enter the field.

While several studies have found a significant correspondence between the density dependence model and actual patterns of foundings, other studies have found patterns not consistent with the model. A possible explanation for this inconsistency is that legitimation and competitive forces transcend national boundaries, while studies typically restrict their analysis to the national level. Thus a national-level analysis can understate the true legitimation and competitive forces as well as the number of foundings in an industry that is internationally integrated. Many industries are or are becoming international, and since media and information easily cross national borders, so should legitimation and its effects on overseas foundings. For example, if a type of firm becomes established in the United States, that information transcends borders, reduces uncertainties, and helps foundings of that type of firm in other countries. Even within national contexts, studies have found more support for the density dependence model when they employ broader geographic units of analysis - for example, finding that the model's operation is seen more clearly at the state and national levels than at city levels.

The primary purpose of the passage is to
(A) question the validity of an economic model
(B) point out some inconsistencies within an economic model
(C) outline an economic model and suggest revisions to it
(D) describe an economic model and provide specific examples to illustrate its use
(E) explain why an economic model remains valid despite inconsistent research results
I have tried to type this reading . OA is E. However, I have chosen C.

[StaceyKoprince]

I admire your perseverance! It's a lot of work to type these passages.

The GDD model explains why specialist firms exist.
Legitimation is a fancy way of saying "legitimate" - early on, a new firm or a new sub-specialty doesn't have a lot of credibility, but the more firms there are, the more legitimate the whole group becomes.
Competition is what it always is. Not many firms, not much competition. Lots of firms, lots of competition.
These two things, legitimacy and competition, are on a sort of teeter-totter. The more legitimate an area, the more new firms want to join VS. the more competition, the less new firms want to join.

So basically, the first paragraph explains what this particular economic model is.

Some studies found real life examples that fit the GDD model. Some studies found other models that didn't fit GDD. This seems inconsistent, so the passage offers a possible explanation: someting about national vs. international blah blah blah. Note that I'm not really getting too much into this detail right now because, on my first read-through, I'm really only concerned about the high-level info. It's enough right now to say there's some difference between how things play out on a national level and how things play out on an international level. This paragraph ends by saying that studies that are more national as opposed to local / city level show more support for the GDD model, so if the studies would just broaden their geographical context, they would, in fact, show support for the GDD model.

So this paragraph points out an apparent inconsistency (some studies don't validate the GDD model while others do) and then explained why this might occur, basically saying that there is a flaw in the studies (too narrow in geographical scope) and that is why they appear not to validate the GDD model.

The primary purpose needs to cover the main point of the passage. The first paragraph is background info: what is this model? The second paragraph is The Point: it's a valid model, even though some studies seem to indicate that it might not be.

A) only really addresses paragraph 2, and even then, this author appears to believe GDD is valid
B) paragraph 2 sort of does this, but the author doesn't believe the inconsistency is with the economic model but rather with the studies
C) paragraph 1 does outline an economic model but nowhere does the passage suggest revisions to the model; rather, the author suggests that the studies of the model should be revised
D) paragraph 1 does describe the model but there are no specific examples of its use
E) this is what paragraph 2 - The Point - is saying

[justprashant]

I agree with the OA, but I had picked D.

My reasoning was that the passage describes the economic model and cites instances of inconsistency. Can we not consider these instances as examples? Also last line of the passage talks about an example.

"”for example, finding that the model's operation is seen
more clearly at the state and national levels than at
city levels. "

Would be glad if you can tell me the trick to avoid falling to such traps.

[RonPurewal]

I agree with the OA, but I had picked D.

My reasoning was that the passage describes the economic model and cites instances of inconsistency. Can we not consider these instances as examples? Also last line of the passage talks about an example.

"”for example, finding that the model's operation is seen
more clearly at the state and national levels than at
city levels. "

Would be glad if you can tell me the trick to avoid falling to such traps.

this choice is incorrect because it says "cites specific examples" -- the passage doesn't cite any specific examples, at all, ever.
the passage contains nothing but generalities and abstract (categorical) descriptions.
e.g.
the passage says
"Many industries are or are becoming international..." --> this is a generality; it's not a specific example.
if the passage said
"The semiconductor industry is becoming international..." --> then that would be a specific example.

similarly, the example that you quoted in italics above is not a specific example, because it's basically just "well, what if a model did this...?"
in order to qualify as a specific example, they would actually have to cite a particular instance in which a model did this.

in sum, don't confuse setting forth specific criteria (which this passage does) with citing specific examples, i.e., naming ACTUAL CASES.

hope that helps

[poonamchiK]

The passage suggests that when a population of specialist firms reaches a high density level, which of the following is likely to occur?

(A) Foundings will decline despite legitimation that has occurred in these industries.

(B) Increasing competition will encourage many firms to broaden their target market.

(C) Competition for resources will become stabilized and thus foundings will be encouraged.

(D) Many customers will abandon their loyalty to older firms as more innovative firms enter the market.

(E) Firms will begin to cross national borders in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage.

I chose a B since that was the most obvious inference i could make out over here.
Apparently OA : A.

How can i make sure of trap questions and subtelities?
Best
Poonam

[jnelson0612]

The passage suggests that when a population of specialist firms reaches a high density level, which of the following is likely to occur?

(A) Foundings will decline despite legitimation that has occurred in these industries.

(B) Increasing competition will encourage many firms to broaden their target market.

(C) Competition for resources will become stabilized and thus foundings will be encouraged.

(D) Many customers will abandon their loyalty to older firms as more innovative firms enter the market.

(E) Firms will begin to cross national borders in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage.

I chose a B since that was the most obvious inference i could make out over here.
Apparently OA : A.

How can i make sure of trap questions and subtelities?
Best
Poonam

This is clearly a specific question, so look back in the passage to find exactly what is stated about firms reaching a high density level. We find that in the last two sentences of the first paragraph:
"At high density levels, however, competitive effects outweigh legitimation effects, discouraging foundings. The more numerous the competitors, the fiercer the competition will be and the smaller will be the incentive for new firms to enter the field."

Notice how this language matches perfectly with A. This is how you avoid mistakes; find where in the passage the specific detail is discussed and then match the wording as much as possible.

[gmatkiller_24]

I admire your perseverance! It's a lot of work to type these passages.

The GDD model explains why specialist firms exist.
Legitimation is a fancy way of saying "legitimate" - early on, a new firm or a new sub-specialty doesn't have a lot of credibility, but the more firms there are, the more legitimate the whole group becomes.
Competition is what it always is. Not many firms, not much competition. Lots of firms, lots of competition.
These two things, legitimacy and competition, are on a sort of teeter-totter. The more legitimate an area, the more new firms want to join VS. the more competition, the less new firms want to join.

So basically, the first paragraph explains what this particular economic model is.

Some studies found real life examples that fit the GDD model. Some studies found other models that didn't fit GDD. This seems inconsistent, so the passage offers a possible explanation: someting about national vs. international blah blah blah. Note that I'm not really getting too much into this detail right now because, on my first read-through, I'm really only concerned about the high-level info. It's enough right now to say there's some difference between how things play out on a national level and how things play out on an international level. This paragraph ends by saying that studies that are more national as opposed to local / city level show more support for the GDD model, so if the studies would just broaden their geographical context, they would, in fact, show support for the GDD model.

So this paragraph points out an apparent inconsistency (some studies don't validate the GDD model while others do) and then explained why this might occur, basically saying that there is a flaw in the studies (too narrow in geographical scope) and that is why they appear not to validate the GDD model.

The primary purpose needs to cover the main point of the passage. The first paragraph is background info: what is this model? The second paragraph is The Point: it's a valid model, even though some studies seem to indicate that it might not be.

A) only really addresses paragraph 2, and even then, this author appears to believe GDD is valid
B) paragraph 2 sort of does this, but the author doesn't believe the inconsistency is with the economic model but rather with the studies
C) paragraph 1 does outline an economic model but nowhere does the passage suggest revisions to the model; rather, the author suggests that the studies of the model should be revised
D) paragraph 1 does describe the model but there are no specific examples of its use
E) this is what paragraph 2 - The Point - is saying

Hi, Stacey, can I eliminate choice A the following ways?(main purpose one)

an inconsistency is presented in the second paragraph, but what the author tried to do was to explain this inconsistency.(it points to choice E)

if the choice A were going to be the correct one, it makes much more sense for the author to utilize this inconsistency as an counter-argument, rather than to explain it.

Please clarify, thank you!

[RonPurewal]

explain to a 9-year-old:
the author is defending the model, but choice A says the author is attacking the model. so, choice A is wrong.

("explain to a 9-year-old" is often an excellent standard by which to measure your understanding of why these things are right or wrong)

[gmatkiller_24]

But I still dont get the feedback from my question / analysis.
Or am I missing some important points there? Sorry for the trouble.

[RonPurewal]

if the choice A were going to be the correct one, it makes much more sense for the author to utilize this inconsistency as an counter-argument, rather than to explain it.

Please clarify, thank you!

this ^^ is the basic idea--as long as you firmly realize that the author is NOT using the inconsistency to argue against the model.

[750plus]

I admire your perseverance! It's a lot of work to type these passages.

The GDD model explains why specialist firms exist.
Legitimation is a fancy way of saying "legitimate" - early on, a new firm or a new sub-specialty doesn't have a lot of credibility, but the more firms there are, the more legitimate the whole group becomes.
Competition is what it always is. Not many firms, not much competition. Lots of firms, lots of competition.
These two things, legitimacy and competition, are on a sort of teeter-totter. The more legitimate an area, the more new firms want to join VS. the more competition, the less new firms want to join.

So basically, the first paragraph explains what this particular economic model is.

Some studies found real life examples that fit the GDD model. Some studies found other models that didn't fit GDD. This seems inconsistent, so the passage offers a possible explanation: someting about national vs. international blah blah blah. Note that I'm not really getting too much into this detail right now because, on my first read-through, I'm really only concerned about the high-level info. It's enough right now to say there's some difference between how things play out on a national level and how things play out on an international level. This paragraph ends by saying that studies that are more national as opposed to local / city level show more support for the GDD model, so if the studies would just broaden their geographical context, they would, in fact, show support for the GDD model.

So this paragraph points out an apparent inconsistency (some studies don't validate the GDD model while others do) and then explained why this might occur, basically saying that there is a flaw in the studies (too narrow in geographical scope) and that is why they appear not to validate the GDD model.

The primary purpose needs to cover the main point of the passage. The first paragraph is background info: what is this model? The second paragraph is The Point: it's a valid model, even though some studies seem to indicate that it might not be.

A) only really addresses paragraph 2, and even then, this author appears to believe GDD is valid
B) paragraph 2 sort of does this, but the author doesn't believe the inconsistency is with the economic model but rather with the studies
C) paragraph 1 does outline an economic model but nowhere does the passage suggest revisions to the model; rather, the author suggests that the studies of the model should be revised
D) paragraph 1 does describe the model but there are no specific examples of its use
E) this is what paragraph 2 - The Point - is saying

Nice Explanation Stacey

Warm Regards
Rajat Gugnani

[RonPurewal]

...well, it's been almost eight years since stacey wrote that (and she hasn't posted in this folder for several years—these days she only posts in the General Questions folder).

but i'll pass it on.
(:

[tronghieu1987@gmail.com]

...well, it's been almost eight years since stacey wrote that (and she hasn't posted in this folder for several years—these days she only posts in the General Questions folder).

but i'll pass it on.
(:

Hi Ron,

I hope you can help me by explaining on another question of this passage:

In the second paragraph, the author is primarily concerned with

(A) noting various exceptions to a certain general finding
(B) examining the impact of one type of industry on another
(C) proposing a possible explanation for an inconsistency
(D) providing specific examples of a particular phenomenon
(E) defending the validity of a particular study's conclusions

The OA is C. However, I think the second paragraph has 2 explanations (not one), the second of which lies in the last sentence. I understand it provides another reason why there are inconsistencies even within national context. It is because the inconsistent studies focus on smaller geographical scale (the accurate studies focus on wider scale). That's the reason why I crossed out choice C.

I also found choice D and E confusing. I initially chose D as I though there are 2 examples of the inconsistencies (the phenomenon). However, I did realize that those examples are for the explanation, not of the phenomenon. Per choice E, according to the explanation above about the main point question, I think E could be a correct answer, although I can not find any conclusions of the study.

Thank you for your help!

[RonPurewal]

The OA is C. However, I think the second paragraph has 2 explanations (not one), the second of which lies in the last sentence.

nope. the last sentence is more of the same idea.

if this is not clear, just do what you should do anyway—explain to a (hypothetical) 9-year-old.

the first part says
A possible explanation for this inconsistency is that legitimation and competitive forces transcend national boundaries, while studies typically restrict their analysis to the national level
SIMPLIFY:
This stuff involves the whole world. So, if you just look at one country at a time, you can't see what is really happening.
EXPLAIN TO A 9-YEAR-OLD:
If you look at bigger areas, the model will look better. If you look at smaller areas, the model will look worse.

the last sentence is exactly the same idea, except 'state' plays the role that 'country' played above, and 'country' plays the role that 'whole world' played above.
not a new idea.
same idea, slightly different scope.

[RonPurewal]

(D) providing specific examples of a particular phenomenon

the second paragraph contains zero specific examples—literally, none whatsoever—so you can eliminate this choice without much thought.

the whole paragraph is just a bunch of generalities.
many industries...
a type of firm...
national contexts...
notice the complete absence of 'specific examples' of any of these. they just aren't there.