TQM - RC

[mgmat.cr]

According to P. F. Drucker, the management philosophy known as Total Quality Management (TQM), which is designed to be adopted consistently throughout an organization and to improve customer service by using sampling theory to reduce the variability of a product's quality, can work successfully in conjunction with two older management systems. As Drucker notes, TQM's scientific approach is consistent with the statistical sampling techniques of the "rationalist" school of scientific management, and the organizational structure associated with TQM is consistent with the social and psychological emphases of the "human relations" school of management.

However, TQM cannot simply be grafted onto these systems or onto certain other non-TQM management systems. Although, as Drucker contends, TQM shares with such systems the ultimate objective of increasing profitability, TQM requires fundamentally different strategies. While the other management systems referred to use upper management decision-making and employee specialization to maximize shareholder profits over the short term, TQM envisions the interests of employees, shareholders, and customers as convergent. For example, lower prices not only benefit consumers but also enhance an organization's competitive edge and ensure its continuance, thus benefiting employees and owners. TQM's emphasis on shared interests is reflected in the decentralized decision-making, integrated production activity, and lateral structure of organizations that achieve the benefits of TQM.


Which of the following best describes the relationship of the second paragraph to the first paragraph?

(A) It presents contrasting explanations for a phenomenon presented in the first paragraph.
(B) It discusses an exception to a general principle outlined in the first paragraph.
(C) It provides information that qualifies a claim presented in the first paragraph.
(D) It presents an example that strengthens a claim presented in the first paragraph.
(E) It presents an alternative approach to solving a problem discussed in the first paragraph.

I answered A but the OA is C. I am not able to figure out how C is correct and A is incorrect.

May I request the instructors to help.

[tim]

This one really boils down to the difference between "phenomenon" and "claim". The first paragraph definitely makes claims but does not describe a phenomenon. If you pay careful attention to the wording of the answer choices these distinctions will be a lot easier to parse..

[kapil99]

Tim can you please tell me the meaning of "information that qualifies a claim presented in the first paragraph". Does qualifying mean to restrict.

[jnelson0612]

Tim can you please tell me the meaning of "information that qualifies a claim presented in the first paragraph". Does qualifying mean to restrict.

Exactly! You've got it.

[pushkalk]

Hello Jamie/Tim,

I looked at C skeptically before selecting A.

The reason I rejected C is because I thought it should read "disqualify" instead of "qualify".

Professor claims in the 1st para that TQM can be encompassed in other modules however the start of second para immediately counters(contrasts) it by saying that the fundamental strategies are different.

Please help !!!

[gmatwork]

As far I think-

a) Para 1 discusses D's views on TQM
b) In Para 2 - Author shows a disagreement on a certain aspect of TQM but if you closely read the sentence -

Although, as Drucker contends, TQM shares with such systems the ultimate objective of increasing profitability, TQM requires fundamentally different strategies.

The first part of the sentence tells you that author agrees with D on something about TQM but disagrees on some other aspect about TQM and that shows that author does not completely disagree with D


That is why -
second paragraph is not a complete contrast to Paragraph 1 BUT imposes certain certain restrictions on the way TQM should be perceived because of disagreement on certain aspects.

Contrast is - saying D: Ram is a good boy
Author: Ram is not a good boy
Qualify: Ram is a good boy, but he disrespects his elders

[pushkalk]

Thanks Engineer Priyanka. :)

Makes sense.

[RonPurewal]

Hello Jamie/Tim,

I looked at C skeptically before selecting A.

The reason I rejected C is because I thought it should read "disqualify" instead of "qualify".

Professor claims in the 1st para that TQM can be encompassed in other modules however the start of second para immediately counters(contrasts) it by saying that the fundamental strategies are different.

Please help !!!

read the posts directly above yours; "qualify" can also mean "place restrictions on".

[divineacclivity]

Ron,

Could you please help me understand why A is wrong and why C is correct.
My reasons for choosing A:
The contrast between Drucker's opinion in Paragraph-1 and author's pinion in paragraph-2:

Paragraph 1: "TQM, ..., can work successfully in conjunction with two other older management systems"

Paragraph 2:
1. However, TQM cannot simply be grafted onto these systems or onto certain other non-TQM management systems.
2. Although TQM shares objective, it requires fundamentally different strategies.

I dont know what I'm missing here. please explain. Thank you.

----------------------------
could you give examples of such a usage: "qualify" can also mean "place restrictions on".

[RonPurewal]

I'm going to guess that you read choice A up to the word "contrasting", and then didn't pay much attention to the rest of the words.
If you'd read that choice carefully, all the way through "explanations for a phenomenon...", you'd realize right away that it's totally wrong.

The only thing in the first paragraph that can be reasonably described as a "phenomenon" is Drucker's observation that TQM is consistent with other systems. ("can work in conjunction with...")
The entire second paragraph, on the other hand, is dedicated to clashes between TQM and those other systems. In other words, most certainly NOT "explanations" of why TQM is consistent with those systems!

[RonPurewal]

Here's an analogous example that's much simpler.

1st paragraph: In many different ways, sports are like warfare.

2nd paragraph: However, the above comparison has limits. Most conspicuously, team-sport athletes are not constantly trying to kill one another. Also, fans in the stands are never unwittingly swept into the gameplay, while bystanders all too often become casualties of urban warfare.

In other words:
1/ Football is like war.
2/ Having said that, I'm now going to give you a bunch of ways in which football is NOT like war.

Explaining something I said in paragraph 1?
No way.

Qualifying (= placing limits on) what I said in paragraph 1?
You bet.

[divineacclivity]

Here's an analogous example that's much simpler.

1st paragraph: In many different ways, sports are like warfare.

2nd paragraph: However, the above comparison has limits. Most conspicuously, team-sport athletes are not constantly trying to kill one another. Also, fans in the stands are never unwittingly swept into the gameplay, while bystanders all too often become casualties of urban warfare.

In other words:
1/ Football is like war.
2/ Having said that, I'm now going to give you a bunch of ways in which football is NOT like war.

Explaining something I said in paragraph 1?
No way.

Got it. Thanks very much.

Qualifying (= placing limits on) what I said in paragraph 1?
You bet.

This is new to me. Thank you very much. Now, the whole thing makes much more sense to me.

[tim]

:)

[RonPurewal]

There are a handful of words whose formal meanings don't correspond well to their more informal usages, or to the usual connotations of similar words.

Obviously I can't just throw an exhaustive list at you, but here are a few that I've seen:

• "Argument"
In formal treatment, an "argument" is one point/conclusion, together with the statements that support it. (In conversation, "argument" normally refers to a disagreement or dispute——which, by definition, will contain at least 2 "arguments" in the formal sense.)

• "Qualify"
As explained above

• "Question(able)"
If you question something, you are suggesting that it's wrong.
If you call something into question, you are presenting counter-evidence / reasons to believe that it's wrong.
If something is questionable, then its veracity is in doubt.
(These usages exist in conversation, too, but many readers think that "call ____ into question" just means "ask questions about ___", and so on.)

• "Critique"
A critique is any kind of value judgment, not necessarily negative. (Often confused with "criticism".)

[tim]

Good point about "critique". This shows up in the RC passage about the census, although it is in one of the wrong answer choices so it's not likely to throw anyone off.