RCs for For Daily Practice Questions for CAT with Answers PDF

An incorporation question (It can't hurt to glance at the structure of the answer choices to see what you're looking for.) Evaluate the new situation by paraphrasing what the author says about labor costs. Management blames higher prices on labor costs, but labor costs are only a tiny part of overall cost, therefore management is just scapegoating (paragraph 4). But if labor costs are the only expense that's increasing doesn't it make sense to blame it on that? The author's argument is weakened on this point, hence choice (D).
Wrong answers:
(A): Opposite. The author claims just the opposite: labor isn't to blame.
(B): Opposite. This answer choice just rephrases (A). Again, the author thinks otherwise.
(C): Out of Scope. While the author does claim this, this piece of data weakens the other part of that argument: that labor costs aren't to blame.

An inference question; make sure that you're clear on the main points of the author's argument. Remember that the author will agree with three, but will disagree with the correct answer. The three wrong answers could be easily eliminated, leading to (B). However, you can also reason that since management has suffered by cutting labor costs, cost—cutting doesn't always result in lowered prices.
Wrong answers:
(A): Opposite. The author does believe this (paragraph 6).
(C): Opposite. The author only briefly mentions that "a few analysts even censured American consumers for their unpatriotic purchases of foreign goods " but then says that the real blame "lies with corporate management " (paragraph 3). Therefore the author agrees.
(D): Opposite. This is the focus of paragraphs 2 and 3.

Just a fancy way of asking what the author would agree with, and therefore a question requiring a deduction. Keep the author's main points in mind while determining whether an answer choice has to follow from them. If the author believes that America has stumbled by losing market share, it follows that regaining that control would be a good thing. If the author didn't believe this, there would have been no real reason to make his argument. (A) it is.
Wrong answers:
(B): Distortion. While business has had trouble keeping skilled workers, there's no reason to believe either that they were alienated or that this was the major blunder.
(C): Distortion. Bleak, but not hopeless. Approach extreme answer choices, especially on inference questions, with extreme scepticism.
(D): Out of Scope. The author never discusses the comparative importance of the markets.

If the information would cause the author to modify a claim, it must severely weaken a claim to the point at which it isn't valid. Analyze the dates. Where else does the author mention specific times? Paragraph 1 says that America lost its competitive advantage in the 1960s. If market share was the same before and after the 1960s, though, there's no reason to think anything was lost. The author would have to modify the 1960s claim somehow, which fits in nicely with (B).
Wrong answers:
(A): Out of Scope. The author doesn't make the claim that the workforce has been the problem.
(C): Out of Scope. The author implies that this is the case, but past market share has no impact on whether or not this is true.
(D): Opposite. The author implies that the post—World War II years were great times for management, and that they didn't start stumbling until the sixties.

A quick scan of the answer choices shows that you have to compare the workers of the two nations on two criteria: contentedness and efficiency. Search for a part of the passage that touches on this. Paragraph 3 is the only one that cites Japan, and mentions that analysts consider American workers less productive and less content. (C) it is.
Wrong answers:
(A): Opposite. They're neither.
(B): Opposite. Latter, but not former.
(D): Opposite. Former, but not latter.

Paraphrase the author's argument about high technology: it's better to start out with low—tech, get experience, and then ramp up to high—tech. Search the answer choices for something that would contradict this. (B) clearly does; if the processes are completely different, why start with low—tech.
Wrong answers:
(A): Out of Scope. While this is quite possibly true, it wouldn't affect the author's chain of reasoning.
(C): Out of Scope. Again, though it might be true, it doesn't harm the author's argument.
(D): Opposite. This strengthens the idea that starting out low—tech makes the high—tech business easier.

We're looking for a business action that would presumably fix one or more of the problems that the author sees in American business. While (C) offers no detailed prescriptions, we know that the author believes foreign models of management to be superior. If American business followed their lead, the author would probably give his support.
Wrong answers:
(A): Opposite. The author attacks this strategy in paragraph 6.
(B): Distortion. The author does argue that businesses should stop trying to minimize wages, but says nothing about wage fairness between groups of workers, only wage fairness as a whole. In fact, the author would probably say that more money should be funneled to lower—skilled workers making low—tech products.
(D): Out of Scope. There's nothing to suggest that the author would agree with this strategy, especially given the fact that he considers the American business model rotten at the core. Simple advertising won't cut it.