2020-05-20 16:55:30来源:网络


  The general density dependence model can be applied to explain the founding of specialist firms (those attempting to serve a narrow target market). According to this model, specialist foundings hinge on the interplay between legitimation and competitive forces, both of which are functions of the density (total number) of firms in a particular specialist population. Legitimation occurs as a new type of firm moves from being viewed as unfamiliar to being viewed as a natural way to organize. At low density levels, each founding increases legitimation, reducing barriers to entry and easing subsequent foundings. Competition occurs because the resources that firms seek--customers, suppliers, and employees--are limited, but as long as density is low relative to plentiful resources, the addition of another firm has a negligible impact on the intensity of competition. At high density levels, however, competitive effects outweigh legitimation effects, discouraging foundings. The more numerous the competitors, the fiercer the competition will be and the smaller will be the incentive for new firms to enter the field.

  While several studies have found a significant correspondence between the density dependence model and actual patterns of foundings, other studies have found patterns not consistent with the model. A possible explanation for this inconsistency is that legitimation and competitive forces transcend national boundaries, while studies typically restrict their analysis to the national level. Thus a national-level analysis can understate the true legitimation and competitive forces as well as the number of foundings in an industry that is internationally integrated. Many industries are or are becoming international, and since media and information easily cross national borders, so should legitimation and its effects on overseas foundings. For example, if a type of firm becomes established in the United States, that information transcends borders, reduces uncertainties, and helps foundings of that type of firm in other countries. Even within national contexts, studies have found more support for the density dependence model when they employ broader geographic units of analysis--for example, finding that the model's operation is seen more clearly at the state and national levels than at city levels.

  Question #4. 066-02 (21392-!-item-!-188;#058&000066-02)

  According to the passage, which of the following may account for the inconsistency between the general density dependence model and the evidence provided by certain studies of foundings?

  (A) Such studies have overemphasized the impact of preexisting firms on the establishment of new firms.

  (B) Such studies have not focused strongly enough on the role of competition among newly established firms operating at the city and state levels.

  (C) Such studies fail to differentiate among specialist firms with regard to the degree to which they deviate from familiar forms of organization.

  (D) Such studies have not taken into account the fact that many industries are internationally integrated.

  (E) Such studies have neglected to investigate firms that attempt to serve only a narrow target market.

  Question #5. 066-04 (21438-!-item-!-188;#058&000066-04)

  In the second paragraph, the author is primarily concerned with

  (A) noting various exceptions to a certain general finding

  (B) examining the impact of one type of industry on another

  (C) proposing a possible explanation for an inconsistency

  (D) providing specific examples of a particular phenomenon

  (E) defending the validity of a particular study's conclusions

  Question #6. 066-06 (21484-!-item-!-188;#058&000066-06)

  The passage suggests that when a population of specialist firms reaches a high density level, which of the following is likely to occur?

  (A) Foundings will decline despite legitimation that has occurred in these industries.

  (B) Increasing competition will encourage many firms to broaden their target market.

  (C) Competition for resources will become stabilized and thus foundings will be encouraged.

  (D) Many customers will abandon their loyalty to older firms as more innovative firms enter the market.

  (E) Firms will begin to cross national borders in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage.

  Question #7. 066-08 (21530-!-item-!-188;#058&000066-08)

  The primary purpose of the passage is to

  (A) question the validity of an economic model

  (B) point out some inconsistencies within an economic model

  (C) outline an economic model and suggest revisions to it

  (D) describe an economic model and provide specific examples to illustrate its use

  (E) explain why an economic model remains valid despite inconsistent research results

  文章概况:第一段说有一个density model能解释公司的一些事情.后面一直给细节,low density的时候这个公司能怎么样,high density的时候这个公司能怎么样.第二段文章上来就说虽然这种model能解释一些东西,但是还是和公司的一些东西不一致.后面解释了为什么不一致,并在结尾给出了一个例子!

  4 细节题,问的是这个model和founding不一致的原因.根据文章脉络我们很容易知道此题考察第二段内容,文章第二段首局就开始说这个model和founding不一致,但是我问的是原因,原因在哪?显然是第二句,我们把第二句读一下: “egitimation and competitive forces跨越了国家边界,而研究只能限于本国.”我们来看看选项

  A 过度预计影响,没提过,杀

  B 没有关注竞争起的作用,没提过,杀

  C 使不同的公司有所区分,没提过,杀

  D 没有考虑到是国际的,和原文国家边界有点关系,留着

  E 忽略了某些公司,没提过,杀.

  5 问第二段文章的观点,第二段说的是什么?就是这个model和founding不一致,并且给出了原因,只要知道第二段是这个脉络关系,选哪个?你选不出C都对不起我!

  6 问一个公司如果到了high density会怎么样,根据脉络显然应该定位到文章第一段后面那个high density那个地方,就是第一段however那句,我们来读一下: “竞争超过了 legitimation effects,从而是founding少了”.我们来看一下选项

  A 说了founding将会下降,和文章的founding将会discourage有点关系,先留着

  B 竞争使公司扩大市场,和我读的没关系,杀

  C founding将encourage,不可能,反了,原文说的是discourage,杀

  D 很多以前的忠实客户将离开当一些创新性的公司进入市场的时候,没说过,杀

  E 公司开始跨边界获得竞争优势,没说过,杀.

  7 文章主旨,我们已经把文章脉络说过了,我们直接来看选项

  A 质疑了一个model,和第二段那个不一致方向上有关系,先留着.

  B 指出了一些和model不一致的东西,反了,文章说的是model和founding不一致,不是和model本身不一致,杀

  C 列出了一个model并提出了修改方案,文章没有提出修改方案,杀

  D 说了一个model并提出了了一个例子,文章确实在后面说了例子,但这个例子好像不是说这个model的,是说这个例子和founding不一致的,杀

  E 一个model虽然有一些不一致,但还是挺有用的.说了不一致,有点关系,先留着

  A和E进行比较,最大的不同就是方向不一样,A 说这个model不怎么样,E说这个model虽然有点毛病但整体还是不错的,文章在第二段开头确实说了这个model有点不对劲,到底选哪个取决于文章结尾是否一直保持这个方向,如果一直保持,那就是A,如果方向又变了那就是E.而文章最后一句所说内容好像还是说整体这个model还是挺有用的,选E(by the way,我看到最后一局话有个even就知道方向变了,我最后一句根本没有读就选了,我怕吓着你们,所以你们如果是读懂了最后一句再判断方向变了也可以理解,记住,不是懂最后一句的内容,而是最后一句的方向,方向显然比内容容易把握.因为这两个选项最大的差异并不是内容而是方向,都内容对于做题是无用功!)


方法不当 高分难得 | 盲目备考 无从下手 | 名师助阵 答疑解惑

微信扫码关注公众号 回复【GMAT】