II. Revisión de la literatura
2.2. Bases teóricas
2.2.3 Enfoque de resolución de problemas
E. Fresh from a nine-month posting as a war correspondent for The Manchester Guardian, Toynbee scribbled down reflections about the shadow side of progress in his notebook, while the Balkans passed silently outside his window.
Explanation:-
In the given case, statement C forms the indirect opening sentence of the paragraph. Statement C cannot be placed anywhere else as the other statements are all connected. Statement A follows statement C as it provides an alternate line of thought and
introduces details about the subject of the paragraph, Arnold Toynbee. Statement E then describes what Toynbee did and statements D and B then conclude the paragraph by providing a reference to the war. Remember that statements A and E form a pair as they are connected by the reference to the Orient Express.
Also, statement D follows statement E. In statement D, the reference is made to his observations, something he was scribbling down in statement E. These clues lead us to option 4.
Question No. : 52
1. Everyone has finished their lucid perusal of the draft presented by legal luminaries in the country to prevent cases of judicial misconduct.
2. The hallmark of a captain beyond reproach is his ability to remain rationale in most situations.
3. Highbrows often forget the need for practicality in delicate matters, and suggest academic solutions that find no connect with the sentiment of the general masses.
4. The company CEO, as well as his directors, are going to provide sane reasons for the lack of transparency in the decision making of the company.
Explanation:-
Sentence 1: Everyone is singular pronoun, and the correct sentence would be ‘Everyone has finished his or her lucid perusal of the draft …...’
Sentence 2: The sentence requires the adjective rational and not the noun rationale.
Sentence 4: The correct sentence is ‘The company CEO, as well as his directors, is going to provide sane reasons for the lack of transparency in the decision making of the company.’ The verb will be singular as the subject in this case as the primary subject of the sentence, ‘the company CEO’, is singular.
Question No. : 53
A. If man is doomed to wind cotton around a spool, or dig coal, or build roads for thirty years of his life, there can be no talk of wealth.
B. Strange to say, there are people who extol this deadening method of centralized production as the proudest achievement of our age.
C. What he gives to the world is only gray and hideous things, reflecting a dull and hideous existence — too weak to live, too cowardly to die.
D. Real wealth consists in things of utility and beauty, in things that help to create strong, beautiful bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in.
E. They do not want to know that centralization is not only the death-knell of liberty, but also of health and beauty, of art and science, all these being impossible in a clock-like, mechanical atmosphere.
Explanation:-
D and A, joined together, make for an ideal contrast. Note this in B, which refers to nothing but the toil of the man doomed to lead a life of drudgery, as discussed in C. Therefore B should follow C. They in E refers to the people already referred to in B.
Question No. : 54
Four students Tina, Tinu, Titu and Teja are ranked 1 to 4, on the basis of their performance in a class test. The following data is given about their ranks:
If Tina is ranked 1, then Tinu is not ranked 3.
If Tinu is not ranked 1, then Teja is ranked 4.
A) Tinu B) Titu C) Tina D) Cannot be determined
A) Tinu B) Teja C) Titu D) Cannot be determined If Titu is not ranked 2, then Teja is ranked 2.
If Titu is ranked 3, then Teja is not ranked 2.
If Teja is ranked 3, then Tina is not ranked 4.
Who is ranked 1 among the four students?
Explanation:-
From the 3rd statement it can be deduced that either Titu or Teja would be ranked 2.
Case 1: Titu is ranked 2.
If Tina is ranked 1 then Tinu is ranked 4 (by the 1st statement). But it is contradicted (by the 2nd statement). So Tina is not ranked 1.
By the 2nd Statement, If Tinu is not ranked 1, then Teja is ranked 4, Tinu is ranked 3 and Tina is ranked 1, which is not possible. So Tinu is definitely ranked 1. Teja can be ranked 3 but then Tina is ranked 4, which contradicts the 5th statement. So Teja is ranked 4 and Tina is ranked 3.
1 2 3 4
Tinu Titu Tina Teja
Case 2: Teja is ranked 2. As seen before Tina can’t get rank 1. So Tinu is ranked 1.
From the 4th statement Titu can’t be ranked 3 as in that case Teja can’t be ranked 2. So Titu is ranked 4 and Tina is ranked 3.
1 2 3 4
Tinu Teja Tina Titu
In both the cases Tinu is ranked 1.
Question No. : 55
Four students Tina, Tinu, Titu and Teja are ranked 1 to 4, on the basis of their performance in a class test. The following data is given about their ranks:
If Tina is ranked 1, then Tinu is not ranked 3.
If Tinu is not ranked 1, then Teja is ranked 4.
If Titu is not ranked 2, then Teja is ranked 2.
If Titu is ranked 3, then Teja is not ranked 2.
If Teja is ranked 3, then Tina is not ranked 4.
Who is ranked 4 among the four students?
Explanation:-
From the 3rd statement it can be deduced that either Titu or Teja would be ranked 2.
Case 1: Titu is ranked 2.
If Tina is ranked 1 then Tinu is ranked 4 (by the 1st statement). But it is contradicted (by the 2nd statement). So Tina is not ranked 1.
By the 2nd Statement, If Tinu is not ranked 1, then Teja is ranked 4, Tinu is ranked 3 and Tina is ranked 1, which is not possible. So Tinu is definitely ranked 1. Teja can be ranked 3 but then Tina is ranked 4, which contradicts the 5th statement. So Teja is ranked 4 and Tina is ranked 3.
1 2 3 4
Tinu Titu Tina Teja
Case 2: Teja is ranked 2. As seen before Tina can’t get rank 1. So Tinu is ranked 1.
From the 4th statement Titu can’t be ranked 3 as in that case Teja can’t be ranked 2. So Titu is ranked 4 and Tina is ranked 3.
1 2 3 4
A) 2 B) 1 C) 0 D) 4 Tinu Teja Tina Titu
Titu and Teja both can ranked 4 . So the answer is cannot be determined.
Question No. : 56
Four students Tina, Tinu, Titu and Teja are ranked 1 to 4, on the basis of their performance in a class test. The following data is given about their ranks:
If Tina is ranked 1, then Tinu is not ranked 3.
If Tinu is not ranked 1, then Teja is ranked 4.
If Titu is not ranked 2, then Teja is ranked 2.
If Titu is ranked 3, then Teja is not ranked 2.
If Teja is ranked 3, then Tina is not ranked 4.
The ranks of how many of the four students can be determined?
Explanation:-
From the 3rd statement it can be deduced that either Titu or Teja would be ranked 2.
Case 1: Titu is ranked 2.
If Tina is ranked 1 then Tinu is ranked 4 (by the 1st statement). But it is contradicted (by the 2nd statement). So Tina is not ranked 1.
By the 2nd Statement, If Tinu is not ranked 1, then Teja is ranked 4, Tinu is ranked 3 and Tina is ranked 1, which is not possible. So Tinu is definitely ranked 1. Teja can be ranked 3 but then Tina is ranked 4, which contradicts the 5th statement. So Teja is ranked 4 and Tina is ranked 3.
1 2 3 4
Tinu Titu Tina Teja
Case 2: Teja is ranked 2. As seen before Tina can’t get rank 1. So Tinu is ranked 1.
From the 4th statement Titu can’t be ranked 3 as in that case Teja can’t be ranked 2. So Titu is ranked 4 and Tina is ranked 3.
1 2 3 4
Tinu Teja Tina Titu
Hence Rank of 2 students can be determined.
Question No. : 57
Management knows it and so does Wall Street: The year-to-year viability of a company depends on its ability to innovate. Given today’s market expectations, global competitive pressures, and the extent and pace of structural change, this is truer than ever. But chief executives struggle to make the case to the Street that their managerial actions can be relied on to yield a stream of successful new offerings. Many admit to being unsure and frustrated. Typically they are aware of a tremendous amount of innovation going on inside their enterprises but don’t feel they have a grasp on all the dispersed initiatives. The pursuit of the new feels haphazard and episodic, and they suspect that the returns on the company’s total innovation investment are too low.
Making matters worse, executives tend to respond with dramatic interventions and vacillating strategies. Take the example of a consumer goods company we know. Attuned to the need to keep its brands fresh in retailers’ and consumers’ minds, it introduced frequent improvements and variations on its core offerings. Most of those earned their keep with respectable uptake by the market and decent margins. Over time, however, it became clear that all this product proliferation, while splitting the revenue pie into ever-smaller slices, wasn’t actually growing the pie. Eager to achieve a much higher return, management lurched toward a new strategy aimed at breakthrough product development—at transformational rather than incremental innovations.
Unfortunately, this company’s structure and processes were not set up to execute on that ambition; although it had the requisite capabilities for envisioning, developing, and market testing innovations close to its core, it neither recognized nor gained the very different capabilities needed to take a bolder path. Its most inventive ideas ended up being diluted beyond recognition, killed outright, or crushed under the weight of the enterprise. Before long the company retreated to what it knew best. Once again, little was ventured and little was gained—and the cycle repeated itself.
A) I & II B) II & IV C) III & IV D) None of these
We tell this story because it is typical of companies that have not yet learned to manage innovation strategically. It demonstrates an all-too-common contrast to the steady, above-average returns that can be achieved only through a well-balanced portfolio. The companies we’ve found to have the strongest innovation track records can articulate a clear innovation ambition; have struck the right balance of core, adjacent, and transformational initiatives across the enterprise; and have put in place the tools and capabilities to manage those various initiatives as parts of an integrated whole. Rather than hoping that their future will emerge from a collection of ad hoc, stand-alone efforts that compete with one another for time, money, attention, and prestige, they manage for “total innovation.”
Passage Source: Managing your Innovation, appeared in Harvard Business Review
According to the information given in the passage, identify the statements that will work better for the viability of the companies:
I. Ad-hoc initiatives render the companies sticking to core-offerings.
II. Wall Street does not trust the managerial actions.
III. Companies use only some of the processes described as those of “total innovation”, in the passage.
IV. Executives show a steadfast attitude that does not help them adapt to situations, and means that they do not crack under stress as they stick to their viewpoints.
Explanation:-
In the first sentence the author himself states that viability depends on the ability to innovate, which is not true in case of a company sticking to core offerings. The wall street people do not affect a company's viability rather their lack of trust is an outcome of company's non-viability. This helps us rule out statement II.
Also, Statement IV can be rejected from the line: “executives tend to respond with dramatic interventions and vacillating strategies.”
Statements III and IV run contrary to the content of this one, and the general sentiment expressed by the passage.
Refer to the fifth sentence of para one "Typically they are...initiatives" the reason for the non-viability is inadequate grasp of executives over diverse/dispersed initiatives. The example of consumer goods company clearly highlights this aspect that company's structures/processes were not suited to bring about transformational innovation.
Question No. : 58
Management knows it and so does Wall Street: The year-to-year viability of a company depends on its ability to innovate. Given today’s market expectations, global competitive pressures, and the extent and pace of structural change, this is truer than ever. But chief executives struggle to make the case to the Street that their managerial actions can be relied on to yield a stream of successful new offerings. Many admit to being unsure and frustrated. Typically they are aware of a tremendous amount of innovation going on inside their enterprises but don’t feel they have a grasp on all the dispersed initiatives. The pursuit of the new feels haphazard and episodic, and they suspect that the returns on the company’s total innovation investment are too low.
Making matters worse, executives tend to respond with dramatic interventions and vacillating strategies. Take the example of a consumer goods company we know. Attuned to the need to keep its brands fresh in retailers’ and consumers’ minds, it introduced frequent improvements and variations on its core offerings. Most of those earned their keep with respectable uptake by the market and decent margins. Over time, however, it became clear that all this product proliferation, while splitting the revenue pie into ever-smaller slices, wasn’t actually growing the pie. Eager to achieve a much higher return, management lurched toward a new strategy aimed at breakthrough product development—at transformational rather than incremental innovations.
Unfortunately, this company’s structure and processes were not set up to execute on that ambition; although it had the requisite capabilities for envisioning, developing, and market testing innovations close to its core, it neither recognized nor gained the very different capabilities needed to take a bolder path. Its most inventive ideas ended up being diluted beyond recognition, killed outright, or crushed under the weight of the enterprise. Before long the company retreated to what it knew best. Once again, little was ventured and little was gained—and the cycle repeated itself.
We tell this story because it is typical of companies that have not yet learned to manage innovation strategically. It demonstrates an all-too-common contrast to the steady, above-average returns that can be achieved only through a well-balanced portfolio. The companies we’ve found to have the strongest innovation track records can articulate a clear innovation ambition; have struck the right balance of core, adjacent, and transformational initiatives across the enterprise; and have put in place the tools and capabilities to manage those various initiatives as parts of an integrated whole. Rather than hoping that their future will emerge from a collection of ad hoc, stand-alone efforts that compete with one another for time, money, attention, and prestige, they manage for “total innovation.”
Passage Source: Managing your Innovation, appeared in Harvard Business Review
A) 2 B) 3 C) 4 D) 5
A) They have an appropriate combination of their core offerings and break through, game changing novel ideas B) They have varied efforts in pursuit of new products which compete with each other to be noticed
C) They have the chief executives who do not tend to intervene dramatically
D) They have the necessary techniques and capabilities to manage the diverse initiatives in the company as related to a common purpose
It can be inferred from the passage that the author places his trust in how many of the below:
I. Transformational innovation introducing breakthroughs in the system II. Incremental innovation building systems one at a time
III. Integrating innovation through systematic changes over time
IV. Lateral innovation that integrate the innovative methods with core methods using lateral thinking V. Total innovation encompassing every area of the organization for collective growth
Explanation:-
There are four methods/approaches that can be inferred from the passage that the author would agree with: I, II, III & V
Each of these finds a mention in the last paragraph of the passage. Statement IV does not find any mention, and neither is lateral thinking ever mentioned in the passage. The passage only uses the word ‘adjacent’ to signify changes that need to be integrated with core changes in the system.
Question No. : 59
Management knows it and so does Wall Street: The year-to-year viability of a company depends on its ability to innovate. Given today’s market expectations, global competitive pressures, and the extent and pace of structural change, this is truer than ever. But chief executives struggle to make the case to the Street that their managerial actions can be relied on to yield a stream of successful new offerings. Many admit to being unsure and frustrated. Typically they are aware of a tremendous amount of innovation going on inside their enterprises but don’t feel they have a grasp on all the dispersed initiatives. The pursuit of the new feels haphazard and episodic, and they suspect that the returns on the company’s total innovation investment are too low.
Making matters worse, executives tend to respond with dramatic interventions and vacillating strategies. Take the example of a consumer goods company we know. Attuned to the need to keep its brands fresh in retailers’ and consumers’ minds, it introduced frequent improvements and variations on its core offerings. Most of those earned their keep with respectable uptake by the market and decent margins. Over time, however, it became clear that all this product proliferation, while splitting the revenue pie into ever-smaller slices, wasn’t actually growing the pie. Eager to achieve a much higher return, management lurched toward a new strategy aimed at breakthrough product development—at transformational rather than incremental innovations.
Unfortunately, this company’s structure and processes were not set up to execute on that ambition; although it had the requisite capabilities for envisioning, developing, and market testing innovations close to its core, it neither recognized nor gained the very different capabilities needed to take a bolder path. Its most inventive ideas ended up being diluted beyond recognition, killed outright, or crushed under the weight of the enterprise. Before long the company retreated to what it knew best. Once again, little was ventured and little was gained—and the cycle repeated itself.
We tell this story because it is typical of companies that have not yet learned to manage innovation strategically. It demonstrates an all-too-common contrast to the steady, above-average returns that can be achieved only through a well-balanced portfolio. The companies we’ve found to have the strongest innovation track records can articulate a clear innovation ambition; have struck the right balance of core, adjacent, and transformational initiatives across the enterprise; and have put in place the tools and capabilities to manage those various initiatives as parts of an integrated whole. Rather than hoping that their future will emerge from a collection of ad hoc, stand-alone efforts that compete with one another for time, money, attention, and prestige, they manage for “total innovation.”
Passage Source: Managing your Innovation, appeared in Harvard Business Review
Passage Source: Managing your Innovation, appeared in Harvard Business Review