The view has prevailed for the better part of the

[jp.jprasanna]

The view has prevailed for the better part of the twentieth century that small firms do not perform an important role in Western economies. Official policies in many countries have favored large units of production because there were strong reasons to believe that large firms were superior to small firms in
virtually every aspect of economic performance"” productivity, technological progress, and job security and compensation. However, in the 1970s, evidence began to suggest that small firms in some countries were outperforming their larger counterparts. Perhaps the best example of this trend was in the steel industry, where new firms entered the market in the form of "mini-mills," and small-firm employment expanded, while many large companies shut down plants and reduced employment. Although no systematic evidence exists to determine unequivocally whether smaller units of production are as efficient as large firms or are, in fact, more efficient, some researchers have concluded that the accumulated evidence to date indicates that small firms are at least not burdened with an inherent size disadvantage. Thus, an alternative view has emerged in the
economics literature, arguing that small firms make several important contributions to industrial markets. First, small firms are often the source of the kind of innovative activity that leads to technological change. Small firms generate market turbulence that creates additional dimensions of competition, and they also
promote international competition through newly created niches. Finally, small firms in recent years have generated the preponderant share of new jobs.

However, empirical knowledge about the relative roles of large and small firms is generally based upon anecdotal evidence and case studies, and such evidence has proved inadequate to answer major questions concerning the role of small firms across
various industries and nations. An additional difficulty is that it is not obvious what criteria one should use to distinguish small firms from large ones. While a "small firm" is often defined as an enterprise with fewer than 500 employees, research studies of small firms use a wide variety of definitions.

The passage suggests which of the following about the empirical study of small firms' role?
(A) Anecdotal evidence does not support the theory that small firms' role is significant.
(B) Degrees of market turbulence are the primary indicator of small firms' role.
(C) An examination of new niches created by small firms has provided important data for the analysis of such firms' role.
(D) Case studies have provided reliable evidence to answer major questions concerning small firms' role.
(E) A more precise definition of the term "small firm" is crucial to making a conclusive analysis about small firms' role

Could you please help me eliminate each of the answer to arrive at the correct one. i.e the technique to that can be used to for questions like these?

Thanks a ton!
Cheers
Jp

[tanyatomar]

i think its (E)

(A) Anecdotal evidence does not support the theory that small firms' role is significant. --> the passage says that "empirical knowledge about the relative roles of large and small firms is generally based upon anecdotal evidence and case studies, and such evidence has proved inadequate to answer major questions concerning the role of small firms across" but this does not mean it does not support the small firms role
(B) Degrees of market turbulence are the primary indicator of small firms' role. ---> this thing is mentioned above in the passage before empirical evidence are even mentioned... not related
(C) An examination of new niches created by small firms has provided important data for the analysis of such firms' role. --> not related to empirical thing
(D) Case studies have provided reliable evidence to answer major questions concerning small firms' role. --> opposite of what is mentioned
(E) A more precise definition of the term "small firm" is crucial to making a conclusive analysis about small firms' role-- > in the passage its mentioned " An additional difficulty is that it is not obvious what criteria one should use to distinguish small firms from large ones. While a "small firm" is often defined as an enterprise with fewer than 500 employees, research studies of small firms use a wide variety of definitions." which means that if the definition is finalised ... it will be helpfull to conclude the analysis...


i hope i am correct.. whats the OA by the way :) :) :)

[RonPurewal]

JP, two things --

1/
please ask a more specific question; you can't just ask for what is basically a comprehensive answer key to the whole problem.
please name at least one specific answer choice with which you had trouble, and describe what kind of trouble you had with it.

2/
please follow the forum rules by posting the correct answer below the problem.


thanks in advance.

[sanmay]

I chose D for this. Though I was not sure about it.

Passage states
empirical knowledge about the relative roles of large and small firms is generally based upon anecdotal evidence and case studies, and such evidence has proved inadequate to answer

Choice A states Anecdotal evidence does not support

Other choices don't fall in close view of the empirical study.

Could someone provide explanation ?

[RonPurewal]

I chose D for this. Though I was not sure about it.

Passage states
empirical knowledge about the relative roles of large and small firms is generally based upon anecdotal evidence and case studies, and such evidence has proved inadequate to answer

how did you get (d)?

you've just quoted a piece of the passage that says exactly the opposite of what (d) says.

[kmr.prashant]

Hi Ron

I selected A but i was contemplating E as well. However i discarded E because the use of the 'strong' language. This option states that the definition is "CRUCIAL" to making a conclusive analysis about small firm's role.

When i read the passage, it didn't not seem to me as it was crucial but rather an added difficulty. Moreover I dont think the "role" is defined by the "definition".

Can you please explain where my thinking is going wrong?

thanks

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron

I selected A but i was contemplating E as well. However i discarded E because the use of the 'strong' language. This option states that the definition is "CRUCIAL" to making a conclusive analysis about small firm's role.

When i read the passage, it didn't not seem to me as it was crucial but rather an added difficulty. Moreover I dont think the "role" is defined by the "definition".

on further reflection, it should be clear that a definition of "small firm" is pretty darn important if you're going to try to quantify the role of small firms. i.e., if you can't even decide which firms are "small" in the first place, it's going to be awfully difficult to say anything about their role in the economy.

hopefully you don't think that "strong" language always makes an answer choice wrong. if you can find strong evidence, then strong language is perfectly fine.

[chetan86]

Hi Ron,

I selected option A for mentioned question as I thought that this option is paraphrase of first line for 3rd paragraph.

I am trying to understand why option A is wrong.

In the 3rd paragraph it is mentioned that "empirical knowledge about the relative roles of large and small firms is generally based upon anecdotal evidence and case studies, and such evidence has proved inadequate to answer major questions concerning the role of small firms across various industries and nations."

In the 3rd para two points are mentioend.
1) Empirical knowledge about small firms
2) No standard criteria available

I rejected option E because it refers to 2nd part of the paragraph while question is about first part of the paragraph.

I thought text of the paragraph 3 - "such evidence has proved inadequate to answer major questions concerning the role of small firms" is similar to option A - "evidence does not support the theory that small firms' role is significant."

Could you please help me to understand these answer options.

Thanks!!!

[RonPurewal]

I rejected option E because it refers to 2nd part of the paragraph while question is about first part of the paragraph.

the second part of the paragraph is still addressing exactly the same issue.

that part even starts out with An additional difficulty——telling you, explicitly, "Here's point #2 to go with point #1 above, about the same tihng."

[chetan86]

I rejected option E because it refers to 2nd part of the paragraph while question is about first part of the paragraph.

the second part of the paragraph is still addressing exactly the same issue.

that part even starts out with An additional difficulty——telling you, explicitly, "Here's point #2 to go with point #1 above, about the same tihng."

Hi Ron,

Thanks a lot for your reply and identifying my mistake.
Now I understood how the option E is relating to the question and passage.

Thanks!!

[RonPurewal]

excellent.

[AnupamaW260]

Hello Sir

In above post I meant to ask more specifically about usage of "hypothesis".
We can use "hypothesis" only in case of scientific passages?

I made mistake of selecting this option C and I want to understand properly when can we use word "hypothesis".
Only to describe some theory or scientific research or new finding?

Thank you !

[sahilk47]

Hello Sir

In above post I meant to ask more specifically about usage of "hypothesis".
We can use "hypothesis" only in case of scientific passages?

I made mistake of selecting this option C and I want to understand properly when can we use word "hypothesis".
Only to describe some theory or scientific research or new finding?

Thank you !

Hi

If I may suggest (Ron would correct me if I am wrong), lets go through the first para:

The view has prevailed for the better part of the twentieth century that small firms do not perform an important role in Western economies. Official policies in many countries have favored large units of production because there were strong reasons to believe that large firms were superior to small firms in virtually every aspect of economic performance"” productivity, technological progress, and job security and compensation. However, in the 1970s, evidence began to suggest that small firms in some countries were outperforming their larger counterparts. Perhaps the best example of this trend was in the steel industry, where new firms entered the market in the form of "mini-mills," and small-firm employment expanded, while many large companies shut down plants and reduced employment. Although no systematic evidence exists to determine unequivocally whether smaller units of production are as efficient as large firms or are, in fact, more efficient, some researchers have concluded that the accumulated evidence to date indicates that small firms are at least not burdened with an inherent size disadvantage. Thus, an alternative view has emerged in the economics literature, arguing that small firms make several important contributions to industrial markets. First, small firms are often the source of the kind of innovative activity that leads to technological change. Small firms generate market turbulence that creates additional dimensions of competition, and they also promote international competition through newly created niches. Finally, small firms in recent years have generated the preponderant share of new jobs.

We can see that the first paragraph essentially introduces a certain view, thereafter puts forth some evidence that is contrary to the existent view. After that, the author supports this new view by sharing his thoughts on the same. (Option A)

However, the author has not really put forth a hypothesis. One can use hypothesis to refer to a conjecture or a proposition, but i am not sure if one can refer to description of development of a viewpoint as a hypothesis.

Thank you

[AnupamaW260]

Thanks.
When I saw OA and passage again I could make out that it is "viewpoint"
But my worry is that I often get confused about such terms in answer choices......hypothesis , theory , mechanism , consideration , making a case etc

[RonPurewal]

those kinds of nouns are, by far, the LEAST important words in the problem (and in any similar problem, too).

in fact, you can ignore them completely.
this is not a vocabulary test; it's a test of whether you can figure out WHY things are here, or what the writers are DOING with those things.
so, you can ignore ALL the words, except for those that actually describe WHAT THE AUTHOR IS DOING:

A/ introduce ... counter ... then new
B/ opposing ... refute both
C/ describe ... support ... reaffirm
D/ alternative ... presented, criticized, dismissed
E/ opposing ... found similar

these are still quite distinct from each other. in fact, it may even be easier to see the distinctions.