DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The first era of innovation – that of the lone inventor – encompassed much of human history. Innovators occasionally formed or latched on to companies to exploit the full potential of their ideas, but most seminal innovations developed before about 1915 are closely associated with the individuals behind them: Gutenberg’s press. Whitney’s cotton gin. Edison’s lightbulb. The Wright brothers’ plane. Ford’s assembly line (actually as much a business model as a technology).With the perfection of the assembly line, a century ago, the increasing complexity and cost of innovation pushed it out of individuals’ reach, driving more company-led efforts. A combination of longer-term perspectives and less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that many organizations would happily tolerate experimental efforts. Thus, the heroes of this second era worked in corporate labs, and corporations evolved from innovation exploiters into innovation creators. Many of the notable commercial inventions of the next 60 years came from these labs: DuPont’s miracle molecules (including nylon); Procter and Gamble’s Crest, Pampers, and Tide brands; the U-2 spy plane and SR-71 Blackbird fighter jet from Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works.The seeds of the third era were planted in the late 1950s and the 1960s, as companies started to become too big and bureaucratic to handle at-the-fringes exploration. The restless individualism of baby boomers clashed with increasingly hierarchical organizations. Innovators began to leave companies, band with like-minded “rebels,” and form new companies. Given the scale required to innovate, however, these rebels needed new forms of funding. Hence the emergence of the VC-backed start-up. The third era came into its own in the 1970s, with the establishment of Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers and Sequoia Capital. These and similar institutions helped to support the formation of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Life became even harder for innovators in big companies as the capital markets’ expectations for short-term performance grew.The technologies birthed during this era and the globalization of world markets have dramatically accelerated the pace of change. Over the past 50 years corporate life spans by some measures have decreased by close to 50%. Back in 2000, Microsoft was an unstoppable monopoly, Apple was playing at the fringes of the computer market, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Phillips Exeter Academy, and Google was a technology in search of a business model.This breathless pace, and the conditions and tools that enable it, bring us to the fourth era – when corporate catalysts can have a transformational impact. Whereas the inventions that characterized the first three eras were typically (but not always) technological breakthroughs, fourth-era innovations are likely to involve business models. One analysis shows that from 1997 to 2007 more than half of the companies that made it onto the Fortune 500 before their 25th birthdays – including Amazon, Starbucks, and AutoNation – were business model innovators.Today it’s easier than ever to innovate, which may suggest that it’s an ideal time to start a business. After all, a wealth of low-cost or no-cost online tools, coupled with hyperconnected markets, put innovation capabilities into the hands of the masses and allow ideas to rapidly spread.Q. Which of the following is not a reason mentioned in the passage that pushed innovators closer to organisations and corporate labs in the second era of innovation?a)The more encouraging stance by corporate bureaucracies towards innovationb)The increasing complexity and cost of innovationc)A less stifling environment created by corporations preferring quick experiments over long-term projectsd)The highly evolved nature of assembly line as a business modelCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given ...

Join the Discussion on the App

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

The first era of innovation – that of the lone inventor – encompassed much of human history. Innovators occasionally formed or latched on to companies to exploit the full potential of their ideas, but most seminal innovations developed before about 1915 are closely associated with the individuals behind them: Gutenberg’s press. Whitney’s cotton gin. Edison’s lightbulb. The Wright brothers’ plane. Ford’s assembly line (actually as much a business model as a technology).

With the perfection of the assembly line, a century ago, the increasing complexity and cost of innovation pushed it out of individuals’ reach, driving more company-led efforts. A combination of longer-term perspectives and less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that many organizations would happily tolerate experimental efforts. Thus, the heroes of this second era worked in corporate labs, and corporations evolved from innovation exploiters into innovation creators. Many of the notable commercial inventions of the next 60 years came from these labs: DuPont’s miracle molecules (including nylon); Procter & Gamble’s Crest, Pampers, and Tide brands; the U-2 spy plane and SR-71 Blackbird fighter jet from Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works.

The seeds of the third era were planted in the late 1950s and the 1960s, as companies started to become too big and bureaucratic to handle at-the-fringes exploration. The restless individualism of baby boomers clashed with increasingly hierarchical organizations. Innovators began to leave companies, band with like-minded “rebels,” and form new companies. Given the scale required to innovate, however, these rebels needed new forms of funding. Hence the emergence of the VC-backed start-up. The third era came into its own in the 1970s, with the establishment of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. These and similar institutions helped to support the formation of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Life became even harder for innovators in big companies as the capital markets’ expectations for short-term performance grew.

The technologies birthed during this era and the globalization of world markets have dramatically accelerated the pace of change. Over the past 50 years corporate life spans by some measures have decreased by close to 50%. Back in 2000, Microsoft was an unstoppable monopoly, Apple was playing at the fringes of the computer market, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Phillips Exeter Academy, and Google was a technology in search of a business model.

This breathless pace, and the conditions and tools that enable it, bring us to the fourth era – when corporate catalysts can have a transformational impact. Whereas the inventions that characterized the first three eras were typically (but not always) technological breakthroughs, fourth-era innovations are likely to involve business models. One analysis shows that from 1997 to 2007 more than half of the companies that made it onto the Fortune 500 before their 25th birthdays – including Amazon, Starbucks, and AutoNation – were business model innovators.

Today it’s easier than ever to innovate, which may suggest that it’s an ideal time to start a business. After all, a wealth of low-cost or no-cost online tools, coupled with hyperconnected markets, put innovation capabilities into the hands of the masses and allow ideas to rapidly spread.

Q. Which of the following is not a reason mentioned in the passage that pushed innovators closer to organisations and corporate labs in the second era of innovation?

a)
The more encouraging stance by corporate bureaucracies towards innovation
b)
The increasing complexity and cost of innovation
c)
A less stifling environment created by corporations preferring quick experiments over long-term projects
d)
The highly evolved nature of assembly line as a business model

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CAT Verbal Mock Test - 2

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a...

All the reasons mentioned in the passage that pushed innovators closer to organisations and corporate labs in the second era of innovation can be found in the following lines: ‘With the perfection of the assembly line a century ago, the increasing complexity and cost of innovation pushed it (the assembly line) out of individuals’ reach, driving more company-led efforts. A combination of longer-term perspectives and less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that many organizations would happily tolerate experimental efforts Thus, the heroes of this second era worked in corporate labs, and corporations evolved from innovation exploiters into innovation creators.’

Option A: Less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that organisations would happily tolerate experimental efforts - this leads us to understanding that their stance towards innovation was more encouraging. Hence, Option A is a reason pushing innovators close to organisations, and not the answer.

Option B: This was mentioned in the para (second underscored portion above), and hence a reason for innovators working for organisations. Option B is not the answer.

Option C: A less stifling environment created by corporations(this part is true) preferring guick experiments over long-term perspectives (this part is not true). Corporations were looking at longer-term perspectives according to the para. Hence, this option is not a reason mentioned in the passage. Option C is the answer.

Option D: The first line - with the perfection of the assembly line’ - justifies this option as a reason for innovators working for corporates. Option D is not the answer.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The first era of innovation – that of the lone inventor – encompassed much of human history. Innovators occasionally formed or latched on to companies to exploit the full potential of their ideas, but most seminal innovations developed before about 1915 are closely associated with the individuals behind them: Gutenberg’s press. Whitney’s cotton gin. Edison’s lightbulb. The Wright brothers’ plane. Ford’s assembly line (actually as much a business model as a technology).With the perfection of the assembly line, a century ago, the increasing complexity and cost of innovation pushed it out of individuals’ reach, driving more company-led efforts. A combination of longer-term perspectives and less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that many organizations would happily tolerate experimental efforts. Thus, the heroes of this second era worked in corporate labs, and corporations evolved from innovation exploiters into innovation creators. Many of the notable commercial inventions of the next 60 years came from these labs: DuPont’s miracle molecules (including nylon); Procter & Gamble’s Crest, Pampers, and Tide brands; the U-2 spy plane and SR-71 Blackbird fighter jet from Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works.The seeds of the third era were planted in the late 1950s and the 1960s, as companies started to become too big and bureaucratic to handle at-the-fringes exploration. The restless individualism of baby boomers clashed with increasingly hierarchical organizations. Innovators began to leave companies, band with like-minded “rebels,” and form new companies. Given the scale required to innovate, however, these rebels needed new forms of funding. Hence the emergence of the VC-backed start-up. The third era came into its own in the 1970s, with the establishment of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. These and similar institutions helped to support the formation of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Life became even harder for innovators in big companies as the capital markets’ expectations for short-term performance grew.The technologies birthed during this era and the globalization of world markets have dramatically accelerated the pace of change. Over the past 50 years corporate life spans by some measures have decreased by close to 50%. Back in 2000, Microsoft was an unstoppable monopoly, Apple was playing at the fringes of the computer market, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Phillips Exeter Academy, and Google was a technology in search of a business model.This breathless pace, and the conditions and tools that enable it, bring us to the fourth era – when corporate catalysts can have a transformational impact. Whereas the inventions that characterized the first three eras were typically (but not always) technological breakthroughs, fourth-era innovations are likely to involve business models. One analysis shows that from 1997 to 2007 more than half of the companies that made it onto the Fortune 500 before their 25th birthdays – including Amazon, Starbucks, and AutoNation – were business model innovators.Today it’s easier than ever to innovate, which may suggest that it’s an ideal time to start a business. After all, a wealth of low-cost or no-cost online tools, coupled with hyperconnected markets, put innovation capabilities into the hands of the masses and allow ideas to rapidly spread.Q. All the following can be understood from the passage EXCEPT

View answer

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The first era of innovation – that of the lone inventor – encompassed much of human history. Innovators occasionally formed or latched on to companies to exploit the full potential of their ideas, but most seminal innovations developed before about 1915 are closely associated with the individuals behind them: Gutenberg’s press. Whitney’s cotton gin. Edison’s lightbulb. The Wright brothers’ plane. Ford’s assembly line (actually as much a business model as a technology).With the perfection of the assembly line, a century ago, the increasing complexity and cost of innovation pushed it out of individuals’ reach, driving more company-led efforts. A combination of longer-term perspectives and less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that many organizations would happily tolerate experimental efforts. Thus, the heroes of this second era worked in corporate labs, and corporations evolved from innovation exploiters into innovation creators. Many of the notable commercial inventions of the next 60 years came from these labs: DuPont’s miracle molecules (including nylon); Procter & Gamble’s Crest, Pampers, and Tide brands; the U-2 spy plane and SR-71 Blackbird fighter jet from Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works.The seeds of the third era were planted in the late 1950s and the 1960s, as companies started to become too big and bureaucratic to handle at-the-fringes exploration. The restless individualism of baby boomers clashed with increasingly hierarchical organizations. Innovators began to leave companies, band with like-minded “rebels,” and form new companies. Given the scale required to innovate, however, these rebels needed new forms of funding. Hence the emergence of the VC-backed start-up. The third era came into its own in the 1970s, with the establishment of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. These and similar institutions helped to support the formation of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Life became even harder for innovators in big companies as the capital markets’ expectations for short-term performance grew.The technologies birthed during this era and the globalization of world markets have dramatically accelerated the pace of change. Over the past 50 years corporate life spans by some measures have decreased by close to 50%. Back in 2000, Microsoft was an unstoppable monopoly, Apple was playing at the fringes of the computer market, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Phillips Exeter Academy, and Google was a technology in search of a business model.This breathless pace, and the conditions and tools that enable it, bring us to the fourth era – when corporate catalysts can have a transformational impact. Whereas the inventions that characterized the first three eras were typically (but not always) technological breakthroughs, fourth-era innovations are likely to involve business models. One analysis shows that from 1997 to 2007 more than half of the companies that made it onto the Fortune 500 before their 25th birthdays – including Amazon, Starbucks, and AutoNation – were business model innovators.Today it’s easier than ever to innovate, which may suggest that it’s an ideal time to start a business. After all, a wealth of low-cost or no-cost online tools, coupled with hyperconnected markets, put innovation capabilities into the hands of the masses and allow ideas to rapidly spread.Q. Google being in search of a business model in 2000 was mentioned by the author to

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavorably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitmentwill depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

Crash Course for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series 2024

Mock Test Series for SNAP

Mock Test Series for XAT

Top Courses for CAT

View all

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The first era of innovation – that of the lone inventor – encompassed much of human history. Innovators occasionally formed or latched on to companies to exploit the full potential of their ideas, but most seminal innovations developed before about 1915 are closely associated with the individuals behind them: Gutenberg’s press. Whitney’s cotton gin. Edison’s lightbulb. The Wright brothers’ plane. Ford’s assembly line (actually as much a business model as a technology).With the perfection of the assembly line, a century ago, the increasing complexity and cost of innovation pushed it out of individuals’ reach, driving more company-led efforts. A combination of longer-term perspectives and less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that many organizations would happily tolerate experimental efforts. Thus, the heroes of this second era worked in corporate labs, and corporations evolved from innovation exploiters into innovation creators. Many of the notable commercial inventions of the next 60 years came from these labs: DuPont’s miracle molecules (including nylon); Procter & Gamble’s Crest, Pampers, and Tide brands; the U-2 spy plane and SR-71 Blackbird fighter jet from Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works.The seeds of the third era were planted in the late 1950s and the 1960s, as companies started to become too big and bureaucratic to handle at-the-fringes exploration. The restless individualism of baby boomers clashed with increasingly hierarchical organizations. Innovators began to leave companies, band with like-minded “rebels,” and form new companies. Given the scale required to innovate, however, these rebels needed new forms of funding. Hence the emergence of the VC-backed start-up. The third era came into its own in the 1970s, with the establishment of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. These and similar institutions helped to support the formation of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Life became even harder for innovators in big companies as the capital markets’ expectations for short-term performance grew.The technologies birthed during this era and the globalization of world markets have dramatically accelerated the pace of change. Over the past 50 years corporate life spans by some measures have decreased by close to 50%. Back in 2000, Microsoft was an unstoppable monopoly, Apple was playing at the fringes of the computer market, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Phillips Exeter Academy, and Google was a technology in search of a business model.This breathless pace, and the conditions and tools that enable it, bring us to the fourth era – when corporate catalysts can have a transformational impact. Whereas the inventions that characterized the first three eras were typically (but not always) technological breakthroughs, fourth-era innovations are likely to involve business models. One analysis shows that from 1997 to 2007 more than half of the companies that made it onto the Fortune 500 before their 25th birthdays – including Amazon, Starbucks, and AutoNation – were business model innovators.Today it’s easier than ever to innovate, which may suggest that it’s an ideal time to start a business. After all, a wealth of low-cost or no-cost online tools, coupled with hyperconnected markets, put innovation capabilities into the hands of the masses and allow ideas to rapidly spread.Q. Which of the following is not a reason mentioned in the passage that pushed innovators closer to organisations and corporate labs in the second era of innovation?a)The more encouraging stance by corporate bureaucracies towards innovationb)The increasing complexity and cost of innovationc)A less stifling environment created by corporations preferring quick experiments over long-term projectsd)The highly evolved nature of assembly line as a business modelCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The first era of innovation – that of the lone inventor – encompassed much of human history. Innovators occasionally formed or latched on to companies to exploit the full potential of their ideas, but most seminal innovations developed before about 1915 are closely associated with the individuals behind them: Gutenberg’s press. Whitney’s cotton gin. Edison’s lightbulb. The Wright brothers’ plane. Ford’s assembly line (actually as much a business model as a technology).With the perfection of the assembly line, a century ago, the increasing complexity and cost of innovation pushed it out of individuals’ reach, driving more company-led efforts. A combination of longer-term perspectives and less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that many organizations would happily tolerate experimental efforts. Thus, the heroes of this second era worked in corporate labs, and corporations evolved from innovation exploiters into innovation creators. Many of the notable commercial inventions of the next 60 years came from these labs: DuPont’s miracle molecules (including nylon); Procter & Gamble’s Crest, Pampers, and Tide brands; the U-2 spy plane and SR-71 Blackbird fighter jet from Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works.The seeds of the third era were planted in the late 1950s and the 1960s, as companies started to become too big and bureaucratic to handle at-the-fringes exploration. The restless individualism of baby boomers clashed with increasingly hierarchical organizations. Innovators began to leave companies, band with like-minded “rebels,” and form new companies. Given the scale required to innovate, however, these rebels needed new forms of funding. Hence the emergence of the VC-backed start-up. The third era came into its own in the 1970s, with the establishment of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. These and similar institutions helped to support the formation of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Life became even harder for innovators in big companies as the capital markets’ expectations for short-term performance grew.The technologies birthed during this era and the globalization of world markets have dramatically accelerated the pace of change. Over the past 50 years corporate life spans by some measures have decreased by close to 50%. Back in 2000, Microsoft was an unstoppable monopoly, Apple was playing at the fringes of the computer market, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Phillips Exeter Academy, and Google was a technology in search of a business model.This breathless pace, and the conditions and tools that enable it, bring us to the fourth era – when corporate catalysts can have a transformational impact. Whereas the inventions that characterized the first three eras were typically (but not always) technological breakthroughs, fourth-era innovations are likely to involve business models. One analysis shows that from 1997 to 2007 more than half of the companies that made it onto the Fortune 500 before their 25th birthdays – including Amazon, Starbucks, and AutoNation – were business model innovators.Today it’s easier than ever to innovate, which may suggest that it’s an ideal time to start a business. After all, a wealth of low-cost or no-cost online tools, coupled with hyperconnected markets, put innovation capabilities into the hands of the masses and allow ideas to rapidly spread.Q. Which of the following is not a reason mentioned in the passage that pushed innovators closer to organisations and corporate labs in the second era of innovation?a)The more encouraging stance by corporate bureaucracies towards innovationb)The increasing complexity and cost of innovationc)A less stifling environment created by corporations preferring quick experiments over long-term projectsd)The highly evolved nature of assembly line as a business modelCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The first era of innovation – that of the lone inventor – encompassed much of human history. Innovators occasionally formed or latched on to companies to exploit the full potential of their ideas, but most seminal innovations developed before about 1915 are closely associated with the individuals behind them: Gutenberg’s press. Whitney’s cotton gin. Edison’s lightbulb. The Wright brothers’ plane. Ford’s assembly line (actually as much a business model as a technology).With the perfection of the assembly line, a century ago, the increasing complexity and cost of innovation pushed it out of individuals’ reach, driving more company-led efforts. A combination of longer-term perspectives and less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that many organizations would happily tolerate experimental efforts. Thus, the heroes of this second era worked in corporate labs, and corporations evolved from innovation exploiters into innovation creators. Many of the notable commercial inventions of the next 60 years came from these labs: DuPont’s miracle molecules (including nylon); Procter & Gamble’s Crest, Pampers, and Tide brands; the U-2 spy plane and SR-71 Blackbird fighter jet from Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works.The seeds of the third era were planted in the late 1950s and the 1960s, as companies started to become too big and bureaucratic to handle at-the-fringes exploration. The restless individualism of baby boomers clashed with increasingly hierarchical organizations. Innovators began to leave companies, band with like-minded “rebels,” and form new companies. Given the scale required to innovate, however, these rebels needed new forms of funding. Hence the emergence of the VC-backed start-up. The third era came into its own in the 1970s, with the establishment of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. These and similar institutions helped to support the formation of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Life became even harder for innovators in big companies as the capital markets’ expectations for short-term performance grew.The technologies birthed during this era and the globalization of world markets have dramatically accelerated the pace of change. Over the past 50 years corporate life spans by some measures have decreased by close to 50%. Back in 2000, Microsoft was an unstoppable monopoly, Apple was playing at the fringes of the computer market, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Phillips Exeter Academy, and Google was a technology in search of a business model.This breathless pace, and the conditions and tools that enable it, bring us to the fourth era – when corporate catalysts can have a transformational impact. Whereas the inventions that characterized the first three eras were typically (but not always) technological breakthroughs, fourth-era innovations are likely to involve business models. One analysis shows that from 1997 to 2007 more than half of the companies that made it onto the Fortune 500 before their 25th birthdays – including Amazon, Starbucks, and AutoNation – were business model innovators.Today it’s easier than ever to innovate, which may suggest that it’s an ideal time to start a business. After all, a wealth of low-cost or no-cost online tools, coupled with hyperconnected markets, put innovation capabilities into the hands of the masses and allow ideas to rapidly spread.Q. Which of the following is not a reason mentioned in the passage that pushed innovators closer to organisations and corporate labs in the second era of innovation?a)The more encouraging stance by corporate bureaucracies towards innovationb)The increasing complexity and cost of innovationc)A less stifling environment created by corporations preferring quick experiments over long-term projectsd)The highly evolved nature of assembly line as a business modelCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The first era of innovation – that of the lone inventor – encompassed much of human history. Innovators occasionally formed or latched on to companies to exploit the full potential of their ideas, but most seminal innovations developed before about 1915 are closely associated with the individuals behind them: Gutenberg’s press. Whitney’s cotton gin. Edison’s lightbulb. The Wright brothers’ plane. Ford’s assembly line (actually as much a business model as a technology).With the perfection of the assembly line, a century ago, the increasing complexity and cost of innovation pushed it out of individuals’ reach, driving more company-led efforts. A combination of longer-term perspectives and less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that many organizations would happily tolerate experimental efforts. Thus, the heroes of this second era worked in corporate labs, and corporations evolved from innovation exploiters into innovation creators. Many of the notable commercial inventions of the next 60 years came from these labs: DuPont’s miracle molecules (including nylon); Procter & Gamble’s Crest, Pampers, and Tide brands; the U-2 spy plane and SR-71 Blackbird fighter jet from Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works.The seeds of the third era were planted in the late 1950s and the 1960s, as companies started to become too big and bureaucratic to handle at-the-fringes exploration. The restless individualism of baby boomers clashed with increasingly hierarchical organizations. Innovators began to leave companies, band with like-minded “rebels,” and form new companies. Given the scale required to innovate, however, these rebels needed new forms of funding. Hence the emergence of the VC-backed start-up. The third era came into its own in the 1970s, with the establishment of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. These and similar institutions helped to support the formation of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Life became even harder for innovators in big companies as the capital markets’ expectations for short-term performance grew.The technologies birthed during this era and the globalization of world markets have dramatically accelerated the pace of change. Over the past 50 years corporate life spans by some measures have decreased by close to 50%. Back in 2000, Microsoft was an unstoppable monopoly, Apple was playing at the fringes of the computer market, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Phillips Exeter Academy, and Google was a technology in search of a business model.This breathless pace, and the conditions and tools that enable it, bring us to the fourth era – when corporate catalysts can have a transformational impact. Whereas the inventions that characterized the first three eras were typically (but not always) technological breakthroughs, fourth-era innovations are likely to involve business models. One analysis shows that from 1997 to 2007 more than half of the companies that made it onto the Fortune 500 before their 25th birthdays – including Amazon, Starbucks, and AutoNation – were business model innovators.Today it’s easier than ever to innovate, which may suggest that it’s an ideal time to start a business. After all, a wealth of low-cost or no-cost online tools, coupled with hyperconnected markets, put innovation capabilities into the hands of the masses and allow ideas to rapidly spread.Q. Which of the following is not a reason mentioned in the passage that pushed innovators closer to organisations and corporate labs in the second era of innovation?a)The more encouraging stance by corporate bureaucracies towards innovationb)The increasing complexity and cost of innovationc)A less stifling environment created by corporations preferring quick experiments over long-term projectsd)The highly evolved nature of assembly line as a business modelCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The first era of innovation – that of the lone inventor – encompassed much of human history. Innovators occasionally formed or latched on to companies to exploit the full potential of their ideas, but most seminal innovations developed before about 1915 are closely associated with the individuals behind them: Gutenberg’s press. Whitney’s cotton gin. Edison’s lightbulb. The Wright brothers’ plane. Ford’s assembly line (actually as much a business model as a technology).With the perfection of the assembly line, a century ago, the increasing complexity and cost of innovation pushed it out of individuals’ reach, driving more company-led efforts. A combination of longer-term perspectives and less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that many organizations would happily tolerate experimental efforts. Thus, the heroes of this second era worked in corporate labs, and corporations evolved from innovation exploiters into innovation creators. Many of the notable commercial inventions of the next 60 years came from these labs: DuPont’s miracle molecules (including nylon); Procter & Gamble’s Crest, Pampers, and Tide brands; the U-2 spy plane and SR-71 Blackbird fighter jet from Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works.The seeds of the third era were planted in the late 1950s and the 1960s, as companies started to become too big and bureaucratic to handle at-the-fringes exploration. The restless individualism of baby boomers clashed with increasingly hierarchical organizations. Innovators began to leave companies, band with like-minded “rebels,” and form new companies. Given the scale required to innovate, however, these rebels needed new forms of funding. Hence the emergence of the VC-backed start-up. The third era came into its own in the 1970s, with the establishment of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. These and similar institutions helped to support the formation of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Life became even harder for innovators in big companies as the capital markets’ expectations for short-term performance grew.The technologies birthed during this era and the globalization of world markets have dramatically accelerated the pace of change. Over the past 50 years corporate life spans by some measures have decreased by close to 50%. Back in 2000, Microsoft was an unstoppable monopoly, Apple was playing at the fringes of the computer market, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Phillips Exeter Academy, and Google was a technology in search of a business model.This breathless pace, and the conditions and tools that enable it, bring us to the fourth era – when corporate catalysts can have a transformational impact. Whereas the inventions that characterized the first three eras were typically (but not always) technological breakthroughs, fourth-era innovations are likely to involve business models. One analysis shows that from 1997 to 2007 more than half of the companies that made it onto the Fortune 500 before their 25th birthdays – including Amazon, Starbucks, and AutoNation – were business model innovators.Today it’s easier than ever to innovate, which may suggest that it’s an ideal time to start a business. After all, a wealth of low-cost or no-cost online tools, coupled with hyperconnected markets, put innovation capabilities into the hands of the masses and allow ideas to rapidly spread.Q. Which of the following is not a reason mentioned in the passage that pushed innovators closer to organisations and corporate labs in the second era of innovation?a)The more encouraging stance by corporate bureaucracies towards innovationb)The increasing complexity and cost of innovationc)A less stifling environment created by corporations preferring quick experiments over long-term projectsd)The highly evolved nature of assembly line as a business modelCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The first era of innovation – that of the lone inventor – encompassed much of human history. Innovators occasionally formed or latched on to companies to exploit the full potential of their ideas, but most seminal innovations developed before about 1915 are closely associated with the individuals behind them: Gutenberg’s press. Whitney’s cotton gin. Edison’s lightbulb. The Wright brothers’ plane. Ford’s assembly line (actually as much a business model as a technology).With the perfection of the assembly line, a century ago, the increasing complexity and cost of innovation pushed it out of individuals’ reach, driving more company-led efforts. A combination of longer-term perspectives and less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that many organizations would happily tolerate experimental efforts. Thus, the heroes of this second era worked in corporate labs, and corporations evolved from innovation exploiters into innovation creators. Many of the notable commercial inventions of the next 60 years came from these labs: DuPont’s miracle molecules (including nylon); Procter & Gamble’s Crest, Pampers, and Tide brands; the U-2 spy plane and SR-71 Blackbird fighter jet from Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works.The seeds of the third era were planted in the late 1950s and the 1960s, as companies started to become too big and bureaucratic to handle at-the-fringes exploration. The restless individualism of baby boomers clashed with increasingly hierarchical organizations. Innovators began to leave companies, band with like-minded “rebels,” and form new companies. Given the scale required to innovate, however, these rebels needed new forms of funding. Hence the emergence of the VC-backed start-up. The third era came into its own in the 1970s, with the establishment of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. These and similar institutions helped to support the formation of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Life became even harder for innovators in big companies as the capital markets’ expectations for short-term performance grew.The technologies birthed during this era and the globalization of world markets have dramatically accelerated the pace of change. Over the past 50 years corporate life spans by some measures have decreased by close to 50%. Back in 2000, Microsoft was an unstoppable monopoly, Apple was playing at the fringes of the computer market, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Phillips Exeter Academy, and Google was a technology in search of a business model.This breathless pace, and the conditions and tools that enable it, bring us to the fourth era – when corporate catalysts can have a transformational impact. Whereas the inventions that characterized the first three eras were typically (but not always) technological breakthroughs, fourth-era innovations are likely to involve business models. One analysis shows that from 1997 to 2007 more than half of the companies that made it onto the Fortune 500 before their 25th birthdays – including Amazon, Starbucks, and AutoNation – were business model innovators.Today it’s easier than ever to innovate, which may suggest that it’s an ideal time to start a business. After all, a wealth of low-cost or no-cost online tools, coupled with hyperconnected markets, put innovation capabilities into the hands of the masses and allow ideas to rapidly spread.Q. Which of the following is not a reason mentioned in the passage that pushed innovators closer to organisations and corporate labs in the second era of innovation?a)The more encouraging stance by corporate bureaucracies towards innovationb)The increasing complexity and cost of innovationc)A less stifling environment created by corporations preferring quick experiments over long-term projectsd)The highly evolved nature of assembly line as a business modelCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The first era of innovation – that of the lone inventor – encompassed much of human history. Innovators occasionally formed or latched on to companies to exploit the full potential of their ideas, but most seminal innovations developed before about 1915 are closely associated with the individuals behind them: Gutenberg’s press. Whitney’s cotton gin. Edison’s lightbulb. The Wright brothers’ plane. Ford’s assembly line (actually as much a business model as a technology).With the perfection of the assembly line, a century ago, the increasing complexity and cost of innovation pushed it out of individuals’ reach, driving more company-led efforts. A combination of longer-term perspectives and less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that many organizations would happily tolerate experimental efforts. Thus, the heroes of this second era worked in corporate labs, and corporations evolved from innovation exploiters into innovation creators. Many of the notable commercial inventions of the next 60 years came from these labs: DuPont’s miracle molecules (including nylon); Procter & Gamble’s Crest, Pampers, and Tide brands; the U-2 spy plane and SR-71 Blackbird fighter jet from Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works.The seeds of the third era were planted in the late 1950s and the 1960s, as companies started to become too big and bureaucratic to handle at-the-fringes exploration. The restless individualism of baby boomers clashed with increasingly hierarchical organizations. Innovators began to leave companies, band with like-minded “rebels,” and form new companies. Given the scale required to innovate, however, these rebels needed new forms of funding. Hence the emergence of the VC-backed start-up. The third era came into its own in the 1970s, with the establishment of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. These and similar institutions helped to support the formation of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Life became even harder for innovators in big companies as the capital markets’ expectations for short-term performance grew.The technologies birthed during this era and the globalization of world markets have dramatically accelerated the pace of change. Over the past 50 years corporate life spans by some measures have decreased by close to 50%. Back in 2000, Microsoft was an unstoppable monopoly, Apple was playing at the fringes of the computer market, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Phillips Exeter Academy, and Google was a technology in search of a business model.This breathless pace, and the conditions and tools that enable it, bring us to the fourth era – when corporate catalysts can have a transformational impact. Whereas the inventions that characterized the first three eras were typically (but not always) technological breakthroughs, fourth-era innovations are likely to involve business models. One analysis shows that from 1997 to 2007 more than half of the companies that made it onto the Fortune 500 before their 25th birthdays – including Amazon, Starbucks, and AutoNation – were business model innovators.Today it’s easier than ever to innovate, which may suggest that it’s an ideal time to start a business. After all, a wealth of low-cost or no-cost online tools, coupled with hyperconnected markets, put innovation capabilities into the hands of the masses and allow ideas to rapidly spread.Q. Which of the following is not a reason mentioned in the passage that pushed innovators closer to organisations and corporate labs in the second era of innovation?a)The more encouraging stance by corporate bureaucracies towards innovationb)The increasing complexity and cost of innovationc)A less stifling environment created by corporations preferring quick experiments over long-term projectsd)The highly evolved nature of assembly line as a business modelCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The first era of innovation – that of the lone inventor – encompassed much of human history. Innovators occasionally formed or latched on to companies to exploit the full potential of their ideas, but most seminal innovations developed before about 1915 are closely associated with the individuals behind them: Gutenberg’s press. Whitney’s cotton gin. Edison’s lightbulb. The Wright brothers’ plane. Ford’s assembly line (actually as much a business model as a technology).With the perfection of the assembly line, a century ago, the increasing complexity and cost of innovation pushed it out of individuals’ reach, driving more company-led efforts. A combination of longer-term perspectives and less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that many organizations would happily tolerate experimental efforts. Thus, the heroes of this second era worked in corporate labs, and corporations evolved from innovation exploiters into innovation creators. Many of the notable commercial inventions of the next 60 years came from these labs: DuPont’s miracle molecules (including nylon); Procter & Gamble’s Crest, Pampers, and Tide brands; the U-2 spy plane and SR-71 Blackbird fighter jet from Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works.The seeds of the third era were planted in the late 1950s and the 1960s, as companies started to become too big and bureaucratic to handle at-the-fringes exploration. The restless individualism of baby boomers clashed with increasingly hierarchical organizations. Innovators began to leave companies, band with like-minded “rebels,” and form new companies. Given the scale required to innovate, however, these rebels needed new forms of funding. Hence the emergence of the VC-backed start-up. The third era came into its own in the 1970s, with the establishment of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. These and similar institutions helped to support the formation of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Life became even harder for innovators in big companies as the capital markets’ expectations for short-term performance grew.The technologies birthed during this era and the globalization of world markets have dramatically accelerated the pace of change. Over the past 50 years corporate life spans by some measures have decreased by close to 50%. Back in 2000, Microsoft was an unstoppable monopoly, Apple was playing at the fringes of the computer market, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Phillips Exeter Academy, and Google was a technology in search of a business model.This breathless pace, and the conditions and tools that enable it, bring us to the fourth era – when corporate catalysts can have a transformational impact. Whereas the inventions that characterized the first three eras were typically (but not always) technological breakthroughs, fourth-era innovations are likely to involve business models. One analysis shows that from 1997 to 2007 more than half of the companies that made it onto the Fortune 500 before their 25th birthdays – including Amazon, Starbucks, and AutoNation – were business model innovators.Today it’s easier than ever to innovate, which may suggest that it’s an ideal time to start a business. After all, a wealth of low-cost or no-cost online tools, coupled with hyperconnected markets, put innovation capabilities into the hands of the masses and allow ideas to rapidly spread.Q. Which of the following is not a reason mentioned in the passage that pushed innovators closer to organisations and corporate labs in the second era of innovation?a)The more encouraging stance by corporate bureaucracies towards innovationb)The increasing complexity and cost of innovationc)A less stifling environment created by corporations preferring quick experiments over long-term projectsd)The highly evolved nature of assembly line as a business modelCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The first era of innovation – that of the lone inventor – encompassed much of human history. Innovators occasionally formed or latched on to companies to exploit the full potential of their ideas, but most seminal innovations developed before about 1915 are closely associated with the individuals behind them: Gutenberg’s press. Whitney’s cotton gin. Edison’s lightbulb. The Wright brothers’ plane. Ford’s assembly line (actually as much a business model as a technology).With the perfection of the assembly line, a century ago, the increasing complexity and cost of innovation pushed it out of individuals’ reach, driving more company-led efforts. A combination of longer-term perspectives and less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that many organizations would happily tolerate experimental efforts. Thus, the heroes of this second era worked in corporate labs, and corporations evolved from innovation exploiters into innovation creators. Many of the notable commercial inventions of the next 60 years came from these labs: DuPont’s miracle molecules (including nylon); Procter & Gamble’s Crest, Pampers, and Tide brands; the U-2 spy plane and SR-71 Blackbird fighter jet from Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works.The seeds of the third era were planted in the late 1950s and the 1960s, as companies started to become too big and bureaucratic to handle at-the-fringes exploration. The restless individualism of baby boomers clashed with increasingly hierarchical organizations. Innovators began to leave companies, band with like-minded “rebels,” and form new companies. Given the scale required to innovate, however, these rebels needed new forms of funding. Hence the emergence of the VC-backed start-up. The third era came into its own in the 1970s, with the establishment of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. These and similar institutions helped to support the formation of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Life became even harder for innovators in big companies as the capital markets’ expectations for short-term performance grew.The technologies birthed during this era and the globalization of world markets have dramatically accelerated the pace of change. Over the past 50 years corporate life spans by some measures have decreased by close to 50%. Back in 2000, Microsoft was an unstoppable monopoly, Apple was playing at the fringes of the computer market, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Phillips Exeter Academy, and Google was a technology in search of a business model.This breathless pace, and the conditions and tools that enable it, bring us to the fourth era – when corporate catalysts can have a transformational impact. Whereas the inventions that characterized the first three eras were typically (but not always) technological breakthroughs, fourth-era innovations are likely to involve business models. One analysis shows that from 1997 to 2007 more than half of the companies that made it onto the Fortune 500 before their 25th birthdays – including Amazon, Starbucks, and AutoNation – were business model innovators.Today it’s easier than ever to innovate, which may suggest that it’s an ideal time to start a business. After all, a wealth of low-cost or no-cost online tools, coupled with hyperconnected markets, put innovation capabilities into the hands of the masses and allow ideas to rapidly spread.Q. Which of the following is not a reason mentioned in the passage that pushed innovators closer to organisations and corporate labs in the second era of innovation?a)The more encouraging stance by corporate bureaucracies towards innovationb)The increasing complexity and cost of innovationc)A less stifling environment created by corporations preferring quick experiments over long-term projectsd)The highly evolved nature of assembly line as a business modelCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The first era of innovation – that of the lone inventor – encompassed much of human history. Innovators occasionally formed or latched on to companies to exploit the full potential of their ideas, but most seminal innovations developed before about 1915 are closely associated with the individuals behind them: Gutenberg’s press. Whitney’s cotton gin. Edison’s lightbulb. The Wright brothers’ plane. Ford’s assembly line (actually as much a business model as a technology).With the perfection of the assembly line, a century ago, the increasing complexity and cost of innovation pushed it out of individuals’ reach, driving more company-led efforts. A combination of longer-term perspectives and less stifling corporate bureaucracies meant that many organizations would happily tolerate experimental efforts. Thus, the heroes of this second era worked in corporate labs, and corporations evolved from innovation exploiters into innovation creators. Many of the notable commercial inventions of the next 60 years came from these labs: DuPont’s miracle molecules (including nylon); Procter & Gamble’s Crest, Pampers, and Tide brands; the U-2 spy plane and SR-71 Blackbird fighter jet from Lockheed Martin’s famed Skunk Works.The seeds of the third era were planted in the late 1950s and the 1960s, as companies started to become too big and bureaucratic to handle at-the-fringes exploration. The restless individualism of baby boomers clashed with increasingly hierarchical organizations. Innovators began to leave companies, band with like-minded “rebels,” and form new companies. Given the scale required to innovate, however, these rebels needed new forms of funding. Hence the emergence of the VC-backed start-up. The third era came into its own in the 1970s, with the establishment of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. These and similar institutions helped to support the formation of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Life became even harder for innovators in big companies as the capital markets’ expectations for short-term performance grew.The technologies birthed during this era and the globalization of world markets have dramatically accelerated the pace of change. Over the past 50 years corporate life spans by some measures have decreased by close to 50%. Back in 2000, Microsoft was an unstoppable monopoly, Apple was playing at the fringes of the computer market, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Phillips Exeter Academy, and Google was a technology in search of a business model.This breathless pace, and the conditions and tools that enable it, bring us to the fourth era – when corporate catalysts can have a transformational impact. Whereas the inventions that characterized the first three eras were typically (but not always) technological breakthroughs, fourth-era innovations are likely to involve business models. One analysis shows that from 1997 to 2007 more than half of the companies that made it onto the Fortune 500 before their 25th birthdays – including Amazon, Starbucks, and AutoNation – were business model innovators.Today it’s easier than ever to innovate, which may suggest that it’s an ideal time to start a business. After all, a wealth of low-cost or no-cost online tools, coupled with hyperconnected markets, put innovation capabilities into the hands of the masses and allow ideas to rapidly spread.Q. Which of the following is not a reason mentioned in the passage that pushed innovators closer to organisations and corporate labs in the second era of innovation?a)The more encouraging stance by corporate bureaucracies towards innovationb)The increasing complexity and cost of innovationc)A less stifling environment created by corporations preferring quick experiments over long-term projectsd)The highly evolved nature of assembly line as a business modelCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam