zoom2suman

"A business should not be held responsible for providing customers with complete information about its products or services; customers should have the responsibility of gathering information about the products or services they may want to buy." Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading. -------------- I agree, in parts, to the statement above that the business should not be held responsible for providing customers with complete information about its products and services. The statement's validity depends upon the type of industry. Based on my experiences, along with examples, I'll show how important it is for a set of industry to provide complete information about its products or services. In service's oriented industry for eg. computer consultancy, the one in which I work, the completeness of information is the criterion, ofcourse with a heavy weightage, that affects the relationship between the business and the customers. Because of the sensitive nature of services, its not possible for the business to expose to the customers, such services for an analysis. In such business, customers come with a specific set of request and what they get along with their request is a plethora of options/ services, which facilitates the customer's need. In such times of high competition, the onus is on the business side to make sure that the customer always gets more than asked for. Nowadays, its the business, which makes sure that the customer does not spend time gathering information on the product. It is the business, which needs to gather information, on behalf of the customers, and come up with services that can be customized for the customers. However, at the same time I don't rule out exceptions where in customers should be held responsible for gathering information about the products or services they may want to buy.

"In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Walk into the Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960's, and you will also find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. Next door, the owners of the Good Earth Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires." The argument suffers from weak line of reasoning and needs to be evaluated further to to arrive at the conclusion that nowadays, people are not as concerned about the regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheese as they were a decade ago. The argument, to come to the conclusion, uses various evidences i.e. Hearts Delight store selling wide selection of cheese and New Beef house owners earning fortunes. I'll try to abridge the gap in reasoning by evaluating each evidence and the underlying assumptions. Heart's Delight store, today, sells wide selection of cheese made with high butterfat content. This is a very specific example and it should not be made generic. This reflects the changes at a particular area, where Hearts Delight Store operates. If we want to generalise this, we need to come up with statistics on other such stores across the country and then evaluate further. New house of beef across the street became millionaires because of increaed intake of red meat. This is the weakest link between the evidence and the conclusion. This evidence is also very specific and cannot be generalised to people as a whole. The argument talks only about the increased intake of red-meat and no where says that the vegetable intake has decreased. What if the vegetable intake also increased heavily in last decade. Also, the unstated wrong assumption is that red-meat costs higher than vegetables. The evidence falls apart. I strongly feel that the argument needs to be evaluated further. If we need to generalise a particular finding, we need to have all statistics available, which takes into account a population set that reflects the eating habbits of the majority.

I feel its C...

1- Not Suf: Doesnt talk abt 'b' 2- Not Suf: Doesnt talk abt 'a' Taking together also there is no solution...so E

"The presence of a competitor is always beneficial to a company. Competition forces a company to change itself in ways that improve its practices." I totally agree to the statement that the presence of a competitor forces a company to change itself in ways that improve its practices. Its imperative, in todays world, to learn from each other and change the practices in a way that is benificial to the company. The presence of a competitor not only is benificial to the other company's practices, but also it helps technological evolution. In the absence of a competitor, the scope of improvement is limited. One because there is no yardstick to quality and second there are less 'revenue' benifits, upon improvement. An absence of a competitor also makes it difficult to analyze/ experiment various technological ways of doing something. Imagine a situation if there is no competitor to Walmart. A situation like that will result in decreased productivity, increased prices etc. However, the presence of Target Stores etc, help Walmart imbibe good practices followed by them and thus improve their efficiency, productivity etc. Competition forces a company to change itself in ways that improve its practices. It forces companies, in order to survive, to change themselves progressively, a quest of improvement. These improvements further instill competition and so we are always striving towards better practices and better ways of conducting business. We can see that the flow of improvement is not unidirectional i.e. competition yeilds competition. I am working in a software giant and I am aware of the importance of this competition. At all the time, we are work towards innovation, a drive which is a result of competition only. We are constantly seeking better CMMi practices, better ways to handle business models etc. At the same time, contibuting to it as well. The benifits of competition are numerous and the best part is that the benifits are not limited to competitors only. These benifits span through technology, economy of the country etc.

"Two years ago, City L was listed 14th in an annual survey that ranks cities according to the quality of life that can be enjoyed by those living in them. This information will enable people who are moving to the state in which City L is located to confidently identify one place, at least, where schools are good, housing is affordable, people are friendly, the environment is safe, and the arts flourish." The argument states that the rank of city, as decided by the annual survey, is a good indicator of the quality of life prevailing in the city's state and so enables people to confidently identify a place, where schools are good, housing is affordable etc. The argument stated is severly flawed. I will try to bring out the weakness's of the argument by stating the flawed underlying assumptions and analyzing the weakness in the line of reasoning. The basic assumption of the argument is that a 2 years old survey still holds good and enables the people, moving to that state, to take decision confidently. I believe 2 years is big a time for changes to happen. The city may have gone through a series of changes, impacting its rank in the survey. For eg. in last 2 years, so many industries came into the city and this resulted in environment degradation, expensive houses etc. People should not depend on the old survey's for making such decisions. The argument, also, suffers from weakened reasoning. It does not take into account the relationship between factors, which were taken into account by the annual survey while deciding the rank of the city and the factors, which people consider before moving to a particular state/ city. It does not differentiate the defination of 'quality of life' between those conducting the survey and those basing it for their subsequent decisions. May be the ranks of the cities were decided on the basis of good hospitals, etc. Also, the argument extrapolates the information related to a particular city to the entire state. We cannot assume that if a city offers a good quality of life, the state will also offer such a life. The argument suffers with other flaws as well for eg. the argument does not tell anything about the grain of the survey i.e. how many states/ cities participated etc. What if only 14 cities participated in the survey?

Shld be A only as C changes the meaning of the sentence.

Can you please explain this rule? Thanks in advance.

When we look at the star Alpha Centauri, we see it as it was a little over four years ago, for it took the light that long to get here. A. we see it as it was a little over four years ago B. we see it as it had been a little over four years ago C. we see it as if it was a little over four years ago D. it appears to us as it did in a little over four years ago E. it appears to us as though a little over four years ago OA-

Xxx?Like many successful authors, Salman Rushdie’s first novel, Grimus, about a Native American who receives the gift of immortality, was an abject failure. A. Like many successful authors, Salman Rushdie’s first novel, Grimus, about B. As have many successful authors, the first of Salman Rushdie’s novels, Grimus, about C. Just as with many successful authors, the first of Salman Rushdie’s novels, Grimus, about D. Just like many successful authors, Salman Rushdie’s first novel, Grimus, on E. As did many successful authors, Salman Rushdie’s first novel, Grimus, on OA-A

Seriously....Bob800 rocks.....please can you upload the same...mine is approaching in 2 weeks time...

IMO A or B.....toughie....I'll go with A.....

The granddaddy of manufacturers, the Shutters Company, headquartered in Milton, is nearly 50 yeas as old as any of their supposed predecessors. A. as old as any of their supposed B. older than any of their supposed C. as old as their supposed D. older than any of their supposedly E. as old as their supposedly Purposefully not adding the OA...please explain.

Some ancient societies mistook tides, which are a natural phenomenon involving the alternating rise and fall in the large fluid bodies of the earth caused by the combined gravitational attraction of the sun and moon, as a magical phenomenon controlled by invisible water nymphs. A. as a magical phenomenon controlled by invisible water nymphs. B. for a magical phenomenon controlled by invisible water nymphs. C. to a magical phenomenon controlled by invisible water nymphs. D. with a magical phenomena controlled by invisible water nymphs. E. for a magical phenomena controlled by invisible water nymphs.

The Sumerians, who founded the first cities, not only invented writing, created poetry and the rule of law, and were also extraordinary craftsmen. A. and were also extraordinary craftsmen. B. but were also extraordinary craftsmen. C. but also were extraordinary craftsmen. D. but also fashioned extraordinary crafts. E. and also fashioned extraordinary crafts.

It cannot be A-- Equivalent is used for amounts and NOT for numbers. Anyone explaning this?

This should be E only....D says 'judgement', the second BF is no judgement but an if/else situation...E wins here..

Whats the problem in B???

Sjd...i am not able to visualise this one..any help....means can you elaborate on your explaination. Thanks,.

Assume there are 120 units. Also assume that in 1 minute O produces 1 unit ==>In 1 hr, O produces 60 Units ==>In 1 hr, N produces, 40 units(N=2/3O) ==>In 1 hr, M produces, 30 units (M=3/4N) Total units in 1 hr = 60+40+30 =130 and units produced by N= 40 Answer = 40/130 = 4/13© ...Am i makin a mistake???

[x/(x+y)](10) + [y/(x+y)](20) = kor 10x/(x+y) + 20y/(x+y)=K or 10x/(x+y) + 10y(x+y) + 10y/(x+y) = k or 10(x+y)/(x+y)+ 10y/(x+y) = k or 10+10y/(x+y)=k HTH!

still not convinced....D says 33% derived from nuclear power in germany. What if rest is derived from nuclear power in Italy/ france???? D is not convincing.... C is better i presume.

Can you explain whats the problem with A....just that it has 'it' repeated...thats all..

Why is B wrong? Please suggest

Q15: Dressed as a man and using the name Robert Shurtleff, Deborah Sampson, the first woman to draw a soldier’s pension, joined the Continental Army in 1782 at the age of 22, was injured three times, and was discharged in 1783 because she had become too ill to serve. A. 22, was injured three times, and was discharged in 1783 because she had become 14 B. 22, was injured three times, while being discharged in 1783 because she had become C. 22, and was injured three times, and discharged in 1783, being D. 22, injured three times, and was discharged in 1783 because she was E. 22, having been injured three times and discharged in 1783, being Is there a problem with D? is it tense issue? Please help!