TQM - RC

[RonPurewal]

Good point about "critique". This shows up in the RC passage about the census, although it is in one of the wrong answer choices so it's not likely to throw anyone off.

For readers who don't know, "the passage about the census" appears in the 11th edition of the OG, but not in subsequent editions.
(It's not inherently more or less important than any other passage; Tim's reference to "the passage..." is a reference to its use in our 9-session course.)

[750plus]

Can you please justify why D is the correct answer to the below question. I picked choice E as the 2nd passage talks about that only.

The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) point out contradictions in a new management system
(B) compare and contrast the objectives of various management systems
(C) identify the organizational features shared by various management systems
(D) explain the relationship of a particular management system to certain other management systems
(E) explain the advantages of a particular management system over certain other management systems

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

I picked choice E as the 2nd passage talks about that only.

nope.

that paragraph is purely 'TQM does X thing; other systems do Y thing.'
nowhere does the author say or imply that TQM is better than the other systems.

[CrystalSpringston]

Tim can you please tell me the meaning of "information that qualifies a claim presented in the first paragraph". Does qualifying mean to restrict.

Exactly! You've got it.

This is tricky. Usually "qualify" means meet some conditions. I rarely noticed it has a quite different meaning.
So how we specify the intended meaning of it? Given both of the meanings make the sentence logical.

[RonPurewal]

there's only one possible meaning here.

there is another sense of 'qualify' (e.g., Jana did not run fast enough to qualify for the Olympics)... but, to use 'qualify' in that way, you have to say 'qualify for xxxxx'.
so, that is not going to be an issue here.

if you see 'qualify' in one of these questions, it will mean 'restrict'/'narrow'.

(nb: if you're reading something in a larger context, in which xxxxx has already been mentioned, then you don't have to keep repeating 'qualify for xxxxx'. for instance, if you're reading an article that is entirely about a country's Olympic team, then you might see "she failed to qualify" in the middle of that article.
...but this is clearly a non-issue here, since multiple-choice answers are not entire stories!)

[CrystalSpringston]

there's only one possible meaning here.

there is another sense of 'qualify' (e.g., Jana did not run fast enough to qualify for the Olympics)... but, to use 'qualify' in that way, you have to say 'qualify for xxxxx'.
so, that is not going to be an issue here.

if you see 'qualify' in one of these questions, it will mean 'restrict'/'narrow'.

(nb: if you're reading something in a larger context, in which xxxxx has already been mentioned, then you don't have to keep repeating 'qualify for xxxxx'. for instance, if you're reading an article that is entirely about a country's Olympic team, then you might see "she failed to qualify" in the middle of that article.
...but this is clearly a non-issue here, since multiple-choice answers are not entire stories!)

Thanks. It is very clear now.

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[yulongw540]

Dear instructor, could you please explain why B is wrong?

(B) It discusses an exception to a general principle outlined in the first paragraph.

In the first paragraph:
the management philosophy known as Total Quality Management (TQM), ... , can work successfully in conjunction with two older management systems.

Then the second paragraph says:
TQM cannot simply be grafted onto these systems or onto certain other non-TQM management systems.

Isn't that an exception of what first paragraph describes?

[RonPurewal]

no -- as that paragraph goes on to describe, there are just some limits/restrictions on that compatibility. (it doesn't appear that you've read through this discussion thread. have you read this thread?)

__

in fact -- not only isn't there an "exception", but there's no "general principle", either.

the first paragraph presents ONE observation about ONE system (TQM can work with xxxxx)... and then the second paragraph restricts that observation somewhat.

there is no "general principle" in the first paragraph at all, so it should be quite clear that choice B is wrong.
(to justify choice B, the first paragraph would have to be something like "Most systems do xxxxxx....", but then the second paragraph would have to point out that TQM doesn't do xxxxxx.)

[yulongw540]

Hi Ron

Thank you for your reply.

I did read all the posts in this thread. And I didn't see anyone asked about the "principle", so I posted my question. I think I misunderstood the word "principle" before.

(to justify choice B, the first paragraph would have to be something like "Most systems do xxxxxx....", but then the second paragraph would have to point out that TQM doesn't do xxxxxx.)

I thought that:
in the first paragraph, "TQM can work with older systems" is a generalization,
then in the second paragraph, "TQM cannot work with xxx " is an exception.

[RonPurewal]

if your reading of the words results in a self-contradiction, then you've misread the words.

the first paragraph says that TQM can work successfully in conjunction with two older management systems.
...not a lie.
it CAN WORK SUCCESSFULLY WITH those two systems.

therefore, the second paragraph CANNOT POSSIBLY be saying "it can't work with those systems".
if that's the meaning you get, you need to go back and re-read that part, since the passage is clearly not going to say X and then turn around and say not-X.

[AnkurA374]

Thanks a lot Ron and Tim. Just want to confirm how did we decipher that the first part...Acc to X, ... is a claim. Isn't it a fact? I mean X already knows this to be true. So, it's a fact. It shouldn't be a claim (an opinion)

Many thanks.

[RonPurewal]

this is basically just common sense:
if some person's name or authority has to be invoked behind a statement, then, you can rest assured that the statement is NOT factual.

in other words... it's a claim.

__

i mean, look how ridiculous it looks if you TRY to do this with something that's actually a fact:
According to Ron Purewal, the capital of California is Sacramento.
LOL!
obviously there's no reason to write "according to ron" on this... because, it's a FACT that sacramento is the capital of california. you'd just write "sacramento is the capital of california."

the ONLY TIME IT'S NECESSARY to "lend authority" to a statement is when it's NOT a fact:
According to Ron Purewal, the best time to go to the gym is between 2 and 4 a.m.
HERE, you NEED to put my name on this statement... because this is actually a contestable statement, so, the identity of the person making the statement (= me) actually MATTERS here.

[AnkurA374]

Perfect. Thanks a lot Ron! Much appreciated help.

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.