All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >   Japan has long practised a form of familial ... Start Learning for Free
Japan has long practised a form of familial capitalism. In good times industrial collusion, overseen by bureaucrats, is practically official policy. The so-called “convoy system” lets corporate stragglers retain a small market share as bigger and better firms steam ahead. It certainly smoothed out the occasional ups and downs during the country’s stunning post-war economic development, as it rapidly caught up with the West. As Japan struggles with its deepest recession since the war, the government has established a mechanism to give financial help to poorly performing firms, companies are being encouraged to provide support to their weaker suppliers, and banks are being asked to do their bit, too. There is nothing unusual about any of this. Financial institutions and carmakers have been bailed out in both America and Europe. Governments around the world are racing to protect their cherished, if dented, national champions.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the credibility of the argument?
  • a)
    Government assistance is rendered only in exceptional circumstances
  • b)
    In America and Europe keeping ailing companies on life- support has harmed the economy overall.
  • c)
    Japan provides an extreme case that illustrates the dangers of coddling weak companies.
  • d)
    Before the downturn, Japanese companies return on equity averaged around 10%, about half the level of American firms.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CAT doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
Japan has long practised a form of familial capitalism. In good times...
Understanding the Argument
The argument discusses Japan's approach to managing its economy through familial capitalism, especially during economic downturns. It highlights government mechanisms aimed at supporting poorly performing firms and how this strategy is not unique to Japan, as seen in America and Europe.
Identifying the Credibility Undermining Statement
The question asks which statement most seriously undermines the credibility of the argument.
Option A: Government assistance is rendered only in exceptional circumstances
- If the government assistance in Japan is only provided during exceptional circumstances, it suggests that the current economic support measures may not be indicative of a general practice or policy.
- This implies that the argument's portrayal of Japan's continuous support for failing companies might be overstated or misrepresentative of the norm.
- Such a statement calls into question the idea that Japan is consistently coddling weak companies, suggesting that the situation may be more about crisis management than long-term economic strategy.
Impact on the Argument
- By establishing that government assistance is reserved for exceptional circumstances, it challenges the notion that Japan has a systematic approach to maintaining ailing companies.
- This could lead to skepticism about the effectiveness of the convoy system in fostering long-term economic health, contradicting the argument’s implications of continuous support for weaker firms.
Conclusion
In summary, option A fundamentally challenges the premise that Japan’s economic support for weak firms is a standard practice, thus undermining the credibility of the broader argument about Japanese familial capitalism.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Japan has long practised a form of familial capitalism. In good times...
First, identify the argument that is to be attacked (to undermine its credibility). The argument is bailouts are a norm in Japan’s capitalism. This is nothing unusual because governments in America and Europe have done it too. Governments around the world are doing it. The crux of the argument is that bailouts or government assistance are not unique to Japan alone but the usual norm followed by most governments.
The passage mentions, “In good times industrial collusion, overseen by bureaucrats, is practically official policy”. This means that in Japan government assistance was rendered during both the good times as well as the bad making option 1 the correct answer option.
Option 2 is not sufficient to attack the “usual’ argument.
Option 3 does nothing to attack the argument - it is not sufficient to say that Japan is an extreme case to weaken the argument. Option 4 may state that generally the industry in Japan has not performed well, but that does not attack the argument.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Answer the question based on the passage given below.Japan has long practised a form of familial capitalism. In good times industrial collusion, overseen by bureaucrats, is practically official policy. The so-called convoy system lets corporate stragglers retain a small market share as bigger and better firms steam ahead. It certainly smoothed out the occasional ups and downs during the countrys stunning post-war economic development, as it rapidly caught up with the West. As Japan struggles with its deepest recession since the war, the government has established a mechanism to give financial help to poorly performing firms, companies are being encouraged to provide support to their weaker suppliers, and banks are being asked to do their bit, too. There is nothing unusual about any of this. Financial institutions and carmakers have been bailed out in both America and Europe. Governments around the world are racing to protect their cherished, if dented, national champions.Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the credibility of the argument?

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

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

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The issues and preoccupations of the 21st century present new and often fundamentally different types of challenges from those that faced the world in 1945, when the United Nations was founded. As new realities and challenges have emerged, so too have new expectations for action and new standards of conduct in national and international affairs. Since, for example, the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, it has become evident that the war against terrorism the world must now fight – one with no contested frontiers and a largely invisible enemy – is one like no other war before it.Many new international institutions have been created to meet these changed circumstances. In key respects, however, the mandates and capacity of international institutions have not kept pace with international needs or modern expectations. Above all, the issue of international intervention for human protection purposes is a clear and compelling example of concerted action urgently being needed to bring international norms and institutions in line with international needs and expectations.The current debate on intervention for human protection purposes is itself both a product and a reflection of how much has changed since the UN was established. The current debate takes place in the context of a broadly expanded range of state, non-state, and institutional actors, and increasingly evident interaction and interdependence among them. It is a debate that reflects new sets of issues and new types of concerns. It is a debate that is being conducted within the framework of new standards of conduct for states and individuals, and in a context of greatly increased expectations for action. And it is a debate that takes place within an institutional framework that since the end of the Cold War has held out the prospect of effective joint international action to address issues of peace, security, human rights and sustainable development on a global scale.With new actors – not least new states, with the UN growing from 51 member states in 1945 to 189 today – has come a wide range of new voices, perspectives, interests, experiences and aspirations. Together, these new international actors have added both depth and texture to the increasingly rich tapestry of international society and important institutional credibility and practical expertise to the wider debate.Prominent among the range of important new actors are a number of institutional actors and mechanisms, especially in the areas of human rights and human security. They have included, among others, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, both created in 1993, and its sister tribunals for Rwanda established in 1994 and Sierra Leone in 2001.The International Criminal Court, whose creation was decided in 1998, will begin operation when 60 countries have ratified its Statute. In addition to the new institutions, established ones such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and the ICRC and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, have been ever more active.Nearly as significant has been the emergence of many new non-state actors in international affairs – including especially a large number of NGOs dealing with global matters; a growing number of media and academic institutions with worldwide reach; and an increasingly diverse array of armed non-state actors ranging from national and international terrorists to traditional rebel movements and various organized criminal groupings. These new non-state actors, good or bad, have forced the debate about intervention for human protection purposes to be conducted in front of a broader public, while at the same time adding new elements to the agenda.Q. Which of the following is true regarding the debate on intervention for human protection purposes?

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The issues and preoccupations of the 21st century present new and often fundamentally different types of challenges from those that faced the world in 1945, when the United Nations was founded. As new realities and challenges have emerged, so too have new expectations for action and new standards of conduct in national and international affairs. Since, for example, the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, it has become evident that the war against terrorism the world must now fight – one with no contested frontiers and a largely invisible enemy – is one like no other war before it.Many new international institutions have been created to meet these changed circumstances. In key respects, however, the mandates and capacity of international institutions have not kept pace with international needs or modern expectations. Above all, the issue of international intervention for human protection purposes is a clear and compelling example of concerted action urgently being needed to bring international norms and institutions in line with international needs and expectations.The current debate on intervention for human protection purposes is itself both a product and a reflection of how much has changed since the UN was established. The current debate takes place in the context of a broadly expanded range of state, non-state, and institutional actors, and increasingly evident interaction and interdependence among them. It is a debate that reflects new sets of issues and new types of concerns. It is a debate that is being conducted within the framework of new standards of conduct for states and individuals, and in a context of greatly increased expectations for action. And it is a debate that takes place within an institutional framework that since the end of the Cold War has held out the prospect of effective joint international action to address issues of peace, security, human rights and sustainable development on a global scale.With new actors – not least new states, with the UN growing from 51 member states in 1945 to 189 today – has come a wide range of new voices, perspectives, interests, experiences and aspirations. Together, these new international actors have added both depth and texture to the increasingly rich tapestry of international society and important institutional credibility and practical expertise to the wider debate.Prominent among the range of important new actors are a number of institutional actors and mechanisms, especially in the areas of human rights and human security. They have included, among others, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, both created in 1993, and its sister tribunals for Rwanda established in 1994 and Sierra Leone in 2001.The International Criminal Court, whose creation was decided in 1998, will begin operation when 60 countries have ratified its Statute. In addition to the new institutions, established ones such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and the ICRC and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, have been ever more active.Nearly as significant has been the emergence of many new non-state actors in international affairs – including especially a large number of NGOs dealing with global matters; a growing number of media and academic institutions with worldwide reach; and an increasingly diverse array of armed non-state actors ranging from national and international terrorists to traditional rebel movements and various organized criminal groupings. These new non-state actors, good or bad, have forced the debate about intervention for human protection purposes to be conducted in front of a broader public, while at the same time adding new elements to the agenda.Q. A criticism that the author levies against international institutions is that

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

Japan has long practised a form of familial capitalism. In good times industrial collusion, overseen by bureaucrats, is practically official policy. The so-called “convoy system” lets corporate stragglers retain a small market share as bigger and better firms steam ahead. It certainly smoothed out the occasional ups and downs during the country’s stunning post-war economic development, as it rapidly caught up with the West. As Japan struggles with its deepest recession since the war, the government has established a mechanism to give financial help to poorly performing firms, companies are being encouraged to provide support to their weaker suppliers, and banks are being asked to do their bit, too. There is nothing unusual about any of this. Financial institutions and carmakers have been bailed out in both America and Europe. Governments around the world are racing to protect their cherished, if dented, national champions.Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the credibility of the argument?a)Government assistance is rendered only in exceptional circumstancesb)In America and Europe keeping ailing companies on life- support has harmed the economy overall.c)Japan provides an extreme case that illustrates the dangers of coddling weak companies.d)Before the downturn, Japanese companies return on equity averaged around 10%, about half the level of American firms.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Japan has long practised a form of familial capitalism. In good times industrial collusion, overseen by bureaucrats, is practically official policy. The so-called “convoy system” lets corporate stragglers retain a small market share as bigger and better firms steam ahead. It certainly smoothed out the occasional ups and downs during the country’s stunning post-war economic development, as it rapidly caught up with the West. As Japan struggles with its deepest recession since the war, the government has established a mechanism to give financial help to poorly performing firms, companies are being encouraged to provide support to their weaker suppliers, and banks are being asked to do their bit, too. There is nothing unusual about any of this. Financial institutions and carmakers have been bailed out in both America and Europe. Governments around the world are racing to protect their cherished, if dented, national champions.Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the credibility of the argument?a)Government assistance is rendered only in exceptional circumstancesb)In America and Europe keeping ailing companies on life- support has harmed the economy overall.c)Japan provides an extreme case that illustrates the dangers of coddling weak companies.d)Before the downturn, Japanese companies return on equity averaged around 10%, about half the level of American firms.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Japan has long practised a form of familial capitalism. In good times industrial collusion, overseen by bureaucrats, is practically official policy. The so-called “convoy system” lets corporate stragglers retain a small market share as bigger and better firms steam ahead. It certainly smoothed out the occasional ups and downs during the country’s stunning post-war economic development, as it rapidly caught up with the West. As Japan struggles with its deepest recession since the war, the government has established a mechanism to give financial help to poorly performing firms, companies are being encouraged to provide support to their weaker suppliers, and banks are being asked to do their bit, too. There is nothing unusual about any of this. Financial institutions and carmakers have been bailed out in both America and Europe. Governments around the world are racing to protect their cherished, if dented, national champions.Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the credibility of the argument?a)Government assistance is rendered only in exceptional circumstancesb)In America and Europe keeping ailing companies on life- support has harmed the economy overall.c)Japan provides an extreme case that illustrates the dangers of coddling weak companies.d)Before the downturn, Japanese companies return on equity averaged around 10%, about half the level of American firms.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Japan has long practised a form of familial capitalism. In good times industrial collusion, overseen by bureaucrats, is practically official policy. The so-called “convoy system” lets corporate stragglers retain a small market share as bigger and better firms steam ahead. It certainly smoothed out the occasional ups and downs during the country’s stunning post-war economic development, as it rapidly caught up with the West. As Japan struggles with its deepest recession since the war, the government has established a mechanism to give financial help to poorly performing firms, companies are being encouraged to provide support to their weaker suppliers, and banks are being asked to do their bit, too. There is nothing unusual about any of this. Financial institutions and carmakers have been bailed out in both America and Europe. Governments around the world are racing to protect their cherished, if dented, national champions.Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the credibility of the argument?a)Government assistance is rendered only in exceptional circumstancesb)In America and Europe keeping ailing companies on life- support has harmed the economy overall.c)Japan provides an extreme case that illustrates the dangers of coddling weak companies.d)Before the downturn, Japanese companies return on equity averaged around 10%, about half the level of American firms.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Japan has long practised a form of familial capitalism. In good times industrial collusion, overseen by bureaucrats, is practically official policy. The so-called “convoy system” lets corporate stragglers retain a small market share as bigger and better firms steam ahead. It certainly smoothed out the occasional ups and downs during the country’s stunning post-war economic development, as it rapidly caught up with the West. As Japan struggles with its deepest recession since the war, the government has established a mechanism to give financial help to poorly performing firms, companies are being encouraged to provide support to their weaker suppliers, and banks are being asked to do their bit, too. There is nothing unusual about any of this. Financial institutions and carmakers have been bailed out in both America and Europe. Governments around the world are racing to protect their cherished, if dented, national champions.Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the credibility of the argument?a)Government assistance is rendered only in exceptional circumstancesb)In America and Europe keeping ailing companies on life- support has harmed the economy overall.c)Japan provides an extreme case that illustrates the dangers of coddling weak companies.d)Before the downturn, Japanese companies return on equity averaged around 10%, about half the level of American firms.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Japan has long practised a form of familial capitalism. In good times industrial collusion, overseen by bureaucrats, is practically official policy. The so-called “convoy system” lets corporate stragglers retain a small market share as bigger and better firms steam ahead. It certainly smoothed out the occasional ups and downs during the country’s stunning post-war economic development, as it rapidly caught up with the West. As Japan struggles with its deepest recession since the war, the government has established a mechanism to give financial help to poorly performing firms, companies are being encouraged to provide support to their weaker suppliers, and banks are being asked to do their bit, too. There is nothing unusual about any of this. Financial institutions and carmakers have been bailed out in both America and Europe. Governments around the world are racing to protect their cherished, if dented, national champions.Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the credibility of the argument?a)Government assistance is rendered only in exceptional circumstancesb)In America and Europe keeping ailing companies on life- support has harmed the economy overall.c)Japan provides an extreme case that illustrates the dangers of coddling weak companies.d)Before the downturn, Japanese companies return on equity averaged around 10%, about half the level of American firms.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Japan has long practised a form of familial capitalism. In good times industrial collusion, overseen by bureaucrats, is practically official policy. The so-called “convoy system” lets corporate stragglers retain a small market share as bigger and better firms steam ahead. It certainly smoothed out the occasional ups and downs during the country’s stunning post-war economic development, as it rapidly caught up with the West. As Japan struggles with its deepest recession since the war, the government has established a mechanism to give financial help to poorly performing firms, companies are being encouraged to provide support to their weaker suppliers, and banks are being asked to do their bit, too. There is nothing unusual about any of this. Financial institutions and carmakers have been bailed out in both America and Europe. Governments around the world are racing to protect their cherished, if dented, national champions.Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the credibility of the argument?a)Government assistance is rendered only in exceptional circumstancesb)In America and Europe keeping ailing companies on life- support has harmed the economy overall.c)Japan provides an extreme case that illustrates the dangers of coddling weak companies.d)Before the downturn, Japanese companies return on equity averaged around 10%, about half the level of American firms.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Japan has long practised a form of familial capitalism. In good times industrial collusion, overseen by bureaucrats, is practically official policy. The so-called “convoy system” lets corporate stragglers retain a small market share as bigger and better firms steam ahead. It certainly smoothed out the occasional ups and downs during the country’s stunning post-war economic development, as it rapidly caught up with the West. As Japan struggles with its deepest recession since the war, the government has established a mechanism to give financial help to poorly performing firms, companies are being encouraged to provide support to their weaker suppliers, and banks are being asked to do their bit, too. There is nothing unusual about any of this. Financial institutions and carmakers have been bailed out in both America and Europe. Governments around the world are racing to protect their cherished, if dented, national champions.Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the credibility of the argument?a)Government assistance is rendered only in exceptional circumstancesb)In America and Europe keeping ailing companies on life- support has harmed the economy overall.c)Japan provides an extreme case that illustrates the dangers of coddling weak companies.d)Before the downturn, Japanese companies return on equity averaged around 10%, about half the level of American firms.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Japan has long practised a form of familial capitalism. In good times industrial collusion, overseen by bureaucrats, is practically official policy. The so-called “convoy system” lets corporate stragglers retain a small market share as bigger and better firms steam ahead. It certainly smoothed out the occasional ups and downs during the country’s stunning post-war economic development, as it rapidly caught up with the West. As Japan struggles with its deepest recession since the war, the government has established a mechanism to give financial help to poorly performing firms, companies are being encouraged to provide support to their weaker suppliers, and banks are being asked to do their bit, too. There is nothing unusual about any of this. Financial institutions and carmakers have been bailed out in both America and Europe. Governments around the world are racing to protect their cherished, if dented, national champions.Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the credibility of the argument?a)Government assistance is rendered only in exceptional circumstancesb)In America and Europe keeping ailing companies on life- support has harmed the economy overall.c)Japan provides an extreme case that illustrates the dangers of coddling weak companies.d)Before the downturn, Japanese companies return on equity averaged around 10%, about half the level of American firms.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Japan has long practised a form of familial capitalism. In good times industrial collusion, overseen by bureaucrats, is practically official policy. The so-called “convoy system” lets corporate stragglers retain a small market share as bigger and better firms steam ahead. It certainly smoothed out the occasional ups and downs during the country’s stunning post-war economic development, as it rapidly caught up with the West. As Japan struggles with its deepest recession since the war, the government has established a mechanism to give financial help to poorly performing firms, companies are being encouraged to provide support to their weaker suppliers, and banks are being asked to do their bit, too. There is nothing unusual about any of this. Financial institutions and carmakers have been bailed out in both America and Europe. Governments around the world are racing to protect their cherished, if dented, national champions.Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the credibility of the argument?a)Government assistance is rendered only in exceptional circumstancesb)In America and Europe keeping ailing companies on life- support has harmed the economy overall.c)Japan provides an extreme case that illustrates the dangers of coddling weak companies.d)Before the downturn, Japanese companies return on equity averaged around 10%, about half the level of American firms.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup