Question Description
Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.Recent years have brought minority-owned businesses in the United States unprecedented opportunities—as well as new and significant risks. Civil rights activists have long argued that one of the principal reasons, why Blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups have difficulty establishing themselves in business’, is that they lack access to the sizable orders and subcontracts that are generated by large companies. Now Congress, in apparent agreement, has required by law that businesses awarded Federal contracts of more than $500,000 do their best to find minority subcontractors and record their efforts to do so on forms filed with the government. Indeed, some Federal and local agencies have gone so far as to set specific percentage goals for apportioning parts of public works contracts to minority enterprises.Corporate response appears to have been substantial. According to figures collected in 1977, the total of corporate contracts with minority businesses rose from $77 million into $1.1 billion in 1977. The projected total of corporate contracts with minority businesses for the early 1980s is estimated to be over 53 billion per year with no letup anticipated in the next decade. Promising as it is for minority businesses, this increased patronage poses dangers for them, too. First, minority firms risk expanding too fast and overextending themselves financially, since most are small concerns and, unlike large businesses, they often need to make substantial investments in new plants, staff, equipment, and the like in order to perform work subcontracted to them. If, thereafter, their subcontracts are for some reason reduced, such firms can face potentially crippling fixed expenses.The world of corporate purchasing can be frustrating for small entrepreneurs who get requests for elaborate formal estimates and bids. Both consume valuable time and resources, and a small company’s efforts must soon result in orders, or both the morale and the financial health of the business will suffer.A second risk is that White-owned companies may seek to cash in on the increasing apportionments through formation of joint ventures with minority-owned concerns. Of course, in many instances there are legitimate reasons for joint ventures; clearly, White and minority enterprises can team up to acquire business that neither could acquire alone. But civil rights groups and minority business owners have complained to Congress about minorities being set up as “fronts” with White backing, rather than being accepted as full partners in legitimate joint ventures.Third, a minority enterprise that secures the business of one large corporate customer often runs the danger of becoming—and remaining—dependent. Even in the best of circumstances, fierce competition from larger, more established companies makes it difficult for small concerns to broaden their customer bases: when such firms have nearly guaranteed orders from a single corporate benefactor, they may truly have to struggle against complacency arising from their current success.Q. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author’s assertion that, in the 1970s, corporate response to Federal requirements was substantial?a)Corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses totalled $ 2 billion in 1979b)Between 1970 and 1972, corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses declined by 25 per centc)The figures collected in 1977 underrepresented the extent of corporate contracts with minority-owned businessesd)The 1.1billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 1.1 billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 77 million in 1972Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.Recent years have brought minority-owned businesses in the United States unprecedented opportunities—as well as new and significant risks. Civil rights activists have long argued that one of the principal reasons, why Blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups have difficulty establishing themselves in business’, is that they lack access to the sizable orders and subcontracts that are generated by large companies. Now Congress, in apparent agreement, has required by law that businesses awarded Federal contracts of more than $500,000 do their best to find minority subcontractors and record their efforts to do so on forms filed with the government. Indeed, some Federal and local agencies have gone so far as to set specific percentage goals for apportioning parts of public works contracts to minority enterprises.Corporate response appears to have been substantial. According to figures collected in 1977, the total of corporate contracts with minority businesses rose from $77 million into $1.1 billion in 1977. The projected total of corporate contracts with minority businesses for the early 1980s is estimated to be over 53 billion per year with no letup anticipated in the next decade. Promising as it is for minority businesses, this increased patronage poses dangers for them, too. First, minority firms risk expanding too fast and overextending themselves financially, since most are small concerns and, unlike large businesses, they often need to make substantial investments in new plants, staff, equipment, and the like in order to perform work subcontracted to them. If, thereafter, their subcontracts are for some reason reduced, such firms can face potentially crippling fixed expenses.The world of corporate purchasing can be frustrating for small entrepreneurs who get requests for elaborate formal estimates and bids. Both consume valuable time and resources, and a small company’s efforts must soon result in orders, or both the morale and the financial health of the business will suffer.A second risk is that White-owned companies may seek to cash in on the increasing apportionments through formation of joint ventures with minority-owned concerns. Of course, in many instances there are legitimate reasons for joint ventures; clearly, White and minority enterprises can team up to acquire business that neither could acquire alone. But civil rights groups and minority business owners have complained to Congress about minorities being set up as “fronts” with White backing, rather than being accepted as full partners in legitimate joint ventures.Third, a minority enterprise that secures the business of one large corporate customer often runs the danger of becoming—and remaining—dependent. Even in the best of circumstances, fierce competition from larger, more established companies makes it difficult for small concerns to broaden their customer bases: when such firms have nearly guaranteed orders from a single corporate benefactor, they may truly have to struggle against complacency arising from their current success.Q. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author’s assertion that, in the 1970s, corporate response to Federal requirements was substantial?a)Corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses totalled $ 2 billion in 1979b)Between 1970 and 1972, corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses declined by 25 per centc)The figures collected in 1977 underrepresented the extent of corporate contracts with minority-owned businessesd)The 1.1billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 1.1 billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 77 million in 1972Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.Recent years have brought minority-owned businesses in the United States unprecedented opportunities—as well as new and significant risks. Civil rights activists have long argued that one of the principal reasons, why Blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups have difficulty establishing themselves in business’, is that they lack access to the sizable orders and subcontracts that are generated by large companies. Now Congress, in apparent agreement, has required by law that businesses awarded Federal contracts of more than $500,000 do their best to find minority subcontractors and record their efforts to do so on forms filed with the government. Indeed, some Federal and local agencies have gone so far as to set specific percentage goals for apportioning parts of public works contracts to minority enterprises.Corporate response appears to have been substantial. According to figures collected in 1977, the total of corporate contracts with minority businesses rose from $77 million into $1.1 billion in 1977. The projected total of corporate contracts with minority businesses for the early 1980s is estimated to be over 53 billion per year with no letup anticipated in the next decade. Promising as it is for minority businesses, this increased patronage poses dangers for them, too. First, minority firms risk expanding too fast and overextending themselves financially, since most are small concerns and, unlike large businesses, they often need to make substantial investments in new plants, staff, equipment, and the like in order to perform work subcontracted to them. If, thereafter, their subcontracts are for some reason reduced, such firms can face potentially crippling fixed expenses.The world of corporate purchasing can be frustrating for small entrepreneurs who get requests for elaborate formal estimates and bids. Both consume valuable time and resources, and a small company’s efforts must soon result in orders, or both the morale and the financial health of the business will suffer.A second risk is that White-owned companies may seek to cash in on the increasing apportionments through formation of joint ventures with minority-owned concerns. Of course, in many instances there are legitimate reasons for joint ventures; clearly, White and minority enterprises can team up to acquire business that neither could acquire alone. But civil rights groups and minority business owners have complained to Congress about minorities being set up as “fronts” with White backing, rather than being accepted as full partners in legitimate joint ventures.Third, a minority enterprise that secures the business of one large corporate customer often runs the danger of becoming—and remaining—dependent. Even in the best of circumstances, fierce competition from larger, more established companies makes it difficult for small concerns to broaden their customer bases: when such firms have nearly guaranteed orders from a single corporate benefactor, they may truly have to struggle against complacency arising from their current success.Q. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author’s assertion that, in the 1970s, corporate response to Federal requirements was substantial?a)Corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses totalled $ 2 billion in 1979b)Between 1970 and 1972, corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses declined by 25 per centc)The figures collected in 1977 underrepresented the extent of corporate contracts with minority-owned businessesd)The 1.1billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 1.1 billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 77 million in 1972Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.Recent years have brought minority-owned businesses in the United States unprecedented opportunities—as well as new and significant risks. Civil rights activists have long argued that one of the principal reasons, why Blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups have difficulty establishing themselves in business’, is that they lack access to the sizable orders and subcontracts that are generated by large companies. Now Congress, in apparent agreement, has required by law that businesses awarded Federal contracts of more than $500,000 do their best to find minority subcontractors and record their efforts to do so on forms filed with the government. Indeed, some Federal and local agencies have gone so far as to set specific percentage goals for apportioning parts of public works contracts to minority enterprises.Corporate response appears to have been substantial. According to figures collected in 1977, the total of corporate contracts with minority businesses rose from $77 million into $1.1 billion in 1977. The projected total of corporate contracts with minority businesses for the early 1980s is estimated to be over 53 billion per year with no letup anticipated in the next decade. Promising as it is for minority businesses, this increased patronage poses dangers for them, too. First, minority firms risk expanding too fast and overextending themselves financially, since most are small concerns and, unlike large businesses, they often need to make substantial investments in new plants, staff, equipment, and the like in order to perform work subcontracted to them. If, thereafter, their subcontracts are for some reason reduced, such firms can face potentially crippling fixed expenses.The world of corporate purchasing can be frustrating for small entrepreneurs who get requests for elaborate formal estimates and bids. Both consume valuable time and resources, and a small company’s efforts must soon result in orders, or both the morale and the financial health of the business will suffer.A second risk is that White-owned companies may seek to cash in on the increasing apportionments through formation of joint ventures with minority-owned concerns. Of course, in many instances there are legitimate reasons for joint ventures; clearly, White and minority enterprises can team up to acquire business that neither could acquire alone. But civil rights groups and minority business owners have complained to Congress about minorities being set up as “fronts” with White backing, rather than being accepted as full partners in legitimate joint ventures.Third, a minority enterprise that secures the business of one large corporate customer often runs the danger of becoming—and remaining—dependent. Even in the best of circumstances, fierce competition from larger, more established companies makes it difficult for small concerns to broaden their customer bases: when such firms have nearly guaranteed orders from a single corporate benefactor, they may truly have to struggle against complacency arising from their current success.Q. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author’s assertion that, in the 1970s, corporate response to Federal requirements was substantial?a)Corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses totalled $ 2 billion in 1979b)Between 1970 and 1972, corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses declined by 25 per centc)The figures collected in 1977 underrepresented the extent of corporate contracts with minority-owned businessesd)The 1.1billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 1.1 billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 77 million in 1972Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.Recent years have brought minority-owned businesses in the United States unprecedented opportunities—as well as new and significant risks. Civil rights activists have long argued that one of the principal reasons, why Blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups have difficulty establishing themselves in business’, is that they lack access to the sizable orders and subcontracts that are generated by large companies. Now Congress, in apparent agreement, has required by law that businesses awarded Federal contracts of more than $500,000 do their best to find minority subcontractors and record their efforts to do so on forms filed with the government. Indeed, some Federal and local agencies have gone so far as to set specific percentage goals for apportioning parts of public works contracts to minority enterprises.Corporate response appears to have been substantial. According to figures collected in 1977, the total of corporate contracts with minority businesses rose from $77 million into $1.1 billion in 1977. The projected total of corporate contracts with minority businesses for the early 1980s is estimated to be over 53 billion per year with no letup anticipated in the next decade. Promising as it is for minority businesses, this increased patronage poses dangers for them, too. First, minority firms risk expanding too fast and overextending themselves financially, since most are small concerns and, unlike large businesses, they often need to make substantial investments in new plants, staff, equipment, and the like in order to perform work subcontracted to them. If, thereafter, their subcontracts are for some reason reduced, such firms can face potentially crippling fixed expenses.The world of corporate purchasing can be frustrating for small entrepreneurs who get requests for elaborate formal estimates and bids. Both consume valuable time and resources, and a small company’s efforts must soon result in orders, or both the morale and the financial health of the business will suffer.A second risk is that White-owned companies may seek to cash in on the increasing apportionments through formation of joint ventures with minority-owned concerns. Of course, in many instances there are legitimate reasons for joint ventures; clearly, White and minority enterprises can team up to acquire business that neither could acquire alone. But civil rights groups and minority business owners have complained to Congress about minorities being set up as “fronts” with White backing, rather than being accepted as full partners in legitimate joint ventures.Third, a minority enterprise that secures the business of one large corporate customer often runs the danger of becoming—and remaining—dependent. Even in the best of circumstances, fierce competition from larger, more established companies makes it difficult for small concerns to broaden their customer bases: when such firms have nearly guaranteed orders from a single corporate benefactor, they may truly have to struggle against complacency arising from their current success.Q. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author’s assertion that, in the 1970s, corporate response to Federal requirements was substantial?a)Corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses totalled $ 2 billion in 1979b)Between 1970 and 1972, corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses declined by 25 per centc)The figures collected in 1977 underrepresented the extent of corporate contracts with minority-owned businessesd)The 1.1billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 1.1 billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 77 million in 1972Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.Recent years have brought minority-owned businesses in the United States unprecedented opportunities—as well as new and significant risks. Civil rights activists have long argued that one of the principal reasons, why Blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups have difficulty establishing themselves in business’, is that they lack access to the sizable orders and subcontracts that are generated by large companies. Now Congress, in apparent agreement, has required by law that businesses awarded Federal contracts of more than $500,000 do their best to find minority subcontractors and record their efforts to do so on forms filed with the government. Indeed, some Federal and local agencies have gone so far as to set specific percentage goals for apportioning parts of public works contracts to minority enterprises.Corporate response appears to have been substantial. According to figures collected in 1977, the total of corporate contracts with minority businesses rose from $77 million into $1.1 billion in 1977. The projected total of corporate contracts with minority businesses for the early 1980s is estimated to be over 53 billion per year with no letup anticipated in the next decade. Promising as it is for minority businesses, this increased patronage poses dangers for them, too. First, minority firms risk expanding too fast and overextending themselves financially, since most are small concerns and, unlike large businesses, they often need to make substantial investments in new plants, staff, equipment, and the like in order to perform work subcontracted to them. If, thereafter, their subcontracts are for some reason reduced, such firms can face potentially crippling fixed expenses.The world of corporate purchasing can be frustrating for small entrepreneurs who get requests for elaborate formal estimates and bids. Both consume valuable time and resources, and a small company’s efforts must soon result in orders, or both the morale and the financial health of the business will suffer.A second risk is that White-owned companies may seek to cash in on the increasing apportionments through formation of joint ventures with minority-owned concerns. Of course, in many instances there are legitimate reasons for joint ventures; clearly, White and minority enterprises can team up to acquire business that neither could acquire alone. But civil rights groups and minority business owners have complained to Congress about minorities being set up as “fronts” with White backing, rather than being accepted as full partners in legitimate joint ventures.Third, a minority enterprise that secures the business of one large corporate customer often runs the danger of becoming—and remaining—dependent. Even in the best of circumstances, fierce competition from larger, more established companies makes it difficult for small concerns to broaden their customer bases: when such firms have nearly guaranteed orders from a single corporate benefactor, they may truly have to struggle against complacency arising from their current success.Q. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author’s assertion that, in the 1970s, corporate response to Federal requirements was substantial?a)Corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses totalled $ 2 billion in 1979b)Between 1970 and 1972, corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses declined by 25 per centc)The figures collected in 1977 underrepresented the extent of corporate contracts with minority-owned businessesd)The 1.1billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 1.1 billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 77 million in 1972Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.Recent years have brought minority-owned businesses in the United States unprecedented opportunities—as well as new and significant risks. Civil rights activists have long argued that one of the principal reasons, why Blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups have difficulty establishing themselves in business’, is that they lack access to the sizable orders and subcontracts that are generated by large companies. Now Congress, in apparent agreement, has required by law that businesses awarded Federal contracts of more than $500,000 do their best to find minority subcontractors and record their efforts to do so on forms filed with the government. Indeed, some Federal and local agencies have gone so far as to set specific percentage goals for apportioning parts of public works contracts to minority enterprises.Corporate response appears to have been substantial. According to figures collected in 1977, the total of corporate contracts with minority businesses rose from $77 million into $1.1 billion in 1977. The projected total of corporate contracts with minority businesses for the early 1980s is estimated to be over 53 billion per year with no letup anticipated in the next decade. Promising as it is for minority businesses, this increased patronage poses dangers for them, too. First, minority firms risk expanding too fast and overextending themselves financially, since most are small concerns and, unlike large businesses, they often need to make substantial investments in new plants, staff, equipment, and the like in order to perform work subcontracted to them. If, thereafter, their subcontracts are for some reason reduced, such firms can face potentially crippling fixed expenses.The world of corporate purchasing can be frustrating for small entrepreneurs who get requests for elaborate formal estimates and bids. Both consume valuable time and resources, and a small company’s efforts must soon result in orders, or both the morale and the financial health of the business will suffer.A second risk is that White-owned companies may seek to cash in on the increasing apportionments through formation of joint ventures with minority-owned concerns. Of course, in many instances there are legitimate reasons for joint ventures; clearly, White and minority enterprises can team up to acquire business that neither could acquire alone. But civil rights groups and minority business owners have complained to Congress about minorities being set up as “fronts” with White backing, rather than being accepted as full partners in legitimate joint ventures.Third, a minority enterprise that secures the business of one large corporate customer often runs the danger of becoming—and remaining—dependent. Even in the best of circumstances, fierce competition from larger, more established companies makes it difficult for small concerns to broaden their customer bases: when such firms have nearly guaranteed orders from a single corporate benefactor, they may truly have to struggle against complacency arising from their current success.Q. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author’s assertion that, in the 1970s, corporate response to Federal requirements was substantial?a)Corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses totalled $ 2 billion in 1979b)Between 1970 and 1972, corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses declined by 25 per centc)The figures collected in 1977 underrepresented the extent of corporate contracts with minority-owned businessesd)The 1.1billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 1.1 billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 77 million in 1972Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.Recent years have brought minority-owned businesses in the United States unprecedented opportunities—as well as new and significant risks. Civil rights activists have long argued that one of the principal reasons, why Blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups have difficulty establishing themselves in business’, is that they lack access to the sizable orders and subcontracts that are generated by large companies. Now Congress, in apparent agreement, has required by law that businesses awarded Federal contracts of more than $500,000 do their best to find minority subcontractors and record their efforts to do so on forms filed with the government. Indeed, some Federal and local agencies have gone so far as to set specific percentage goals for apportioning parts of public works contracts to minority enterprises.Corporate response appears to have been substantial. According to figures collected in 1977, the total of corporate contracts with minority businesses rose from $77 million into $1.1 billion in 1977. The projected total of corporate contracts with minority businesses for the early 1980s is estimated to be over 53 billion per year with no letup anticipated in the next decade. Promising as it is for minority businesses, this increased patronage poses dangers for them, too. First, minority firms risk expanding too fast and overextending themselves financially, since most are small concerns and, unlike large businesses, they often need to make substantial investments in new plants, staff, equipment, and the like in order to perform work subcontracted to them. If, thereafter, their subcontracts are for some reason reduced, such firms can face potentially crippling fixed expenses.The world of corporate purchasing can be frustrating for small entrepreneurs who get requests for elaborate formal estimates and bids. Both consume valuable time and resources, and a small company’s efforts must soon result in orders, or both the morale and the financial health of the business will suffer.A second risk is that White-owned companies may seek to cash in on the increasing apportionments through formation of joint ventures with minority-owned concerns. Of course, in many instances there are legitimate reasons for joint ventures; clearly, White and minority enterprises can team up to acquire business that neither could acquire alone. But civil rights groups and minority business owners have complained to Congress about minorities being set up as “fronts” with White backing, rather than being accepted as full partners in legitimate joint ventures.Third, a minority enterprise that secures the business of one large corporate customer often runs the danger of becoming—and remaining—dependent. Even in the best of circumstances, fierce competition from larger, more established companies makes it difficult for small concerns to broaden their customer bases: when such firms have nearly guaranteed orders from a single corporate benefactor, they may truly have to struggle against complacency arising from their current success.Q. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author’s assertion that, in the 1970s, corporate response to Federal requirements was substantial?a)Corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses totalled $ 2 billion in 1979b)Between 1970 and 1972, corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses declined by 25 per centc)The figures collected in 1977 underrepresented the extent of corporate contracts with minority-owned businessesd)The 1.1billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 1.1 billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 77 million in 1972Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Read the following passages given below and answer the questions given at the end of each passage.Recent years have brought minority-owned businesses in the United States unprecedented opportunities—as well as new and significant risks. Civil rights activists have long argued that one of the principal reasons, why Blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups have difficulty establishing themselves in business’, is that they lack access to the sizable orders and subcontracts that are generated by large companies. Now Congress, in apparent agreement, has required by law that businesses awarded Federal contracts of more than $500,000 do their best to find minority subcontractors and record their efforts to do so on forms filed with the government. Indeed, some Federal and local agencies have gone so far as to set specific percentage goals for apportioning parts of public works contracts to minority enterprises.Corporate response appears to have been substantial. According to figures collected in 1977, the total of corporate contracts with minority businesses rose from $77 million into $1.1 billion in 1977. The projected total of corporate contracts with minority businesses for the early 1980s is estimated to be over 53 billion per year with no letup anticipated in the next decade. Promising as it is for minority businesses, this increased patronage poses dangers for them, too. First, minority firms risk expanding too fast and overextending themselves financially, since most are small concerns and, unlike large businesses, they often need to make substantial investments in new plants, staff, equipment, and the like in order to perform work subcontracted to them. If, thereafter, their subcontracts are for some reason reduced, such firms can face potentially crippling fixed expenses.The world of corporate purchasing can be frustrating for small entrepreneurs who get requests for elaborate formal estimates and bids. Both consume valuable time and resources, and a small company’s efforts must soon result in orders, or both the morale and the financial health of the business will suffer.A second risk is that White-owned companies may seek to cash in on the increasing apportionments through formation of joint ventures with minority-owned concerns. Of course, in many instances there are legitimate reasons for joint ventures; clearly, White and minority enterprises can team up to acquire business that neither could acquire alone. But civil rights groups and minority business owners have complained to Congress about minorities being set up as “fronts” with White backing, rather than being accepted as full partners in legitimate joint ventures.Third, a minority enterprise that secures the business of one large corporate customer often runs the danger of becoming—and remaining—dependent. Even in the best of circumstances, fierce competition from larger, more established companies makes it difficult for small concerns to broaden their customer bases: when such firms have nearly guaranteed orders from a single corporate benefactor, they may truly have to struggle against complacency arising from their current success.Q. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author’s assertion that, in the 1970s, corporate response to Federal requirements was substantial?a)Corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses totalled $ 2 billion in 1979b)Between 1970 and 1972, corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses declined by 25 per centc)The figures collected in 1977 underrepresented the extent of corporate contracts with minority-owned businessesd)The 1.1billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 1.1 billion represented the same percentage of total corporate spending in 1977 as did 77 million in 1972Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.