Reading Comprehension

The majority of successful senior managers do not closely follow the classical rational model of first clarifying goals, assessing the problem, formulating options, estimating likelihoods of success, making a decision, and only then taking action to implement the decision. Rather, in their day-by-day tactical maneuvers, these senior executives rely on what is vaguely termed "intuition" to manage a network of interrelated problems that require them to deal with ambiguity, inconsistency, novelty, and surprise; and to integrate action into the process of thinking.
Generations of writers on management have recognized that some practicing managers rely heavily on intuition. In general, however, such writers display a poor grasp of what intuition is. Some see it as the opposite of rationality; others view it as an excuse for capriciousness.

Isenberg's recent research on the cognitive processes of senior managers reveals that managers' intuition is neither of these. Rather, senior managers use intuition in at least five distinct ways. First, they intuitively sense when a problem exists. Second, managers rely on intuition to perform well-learned behavior patterns rapidly. This intuition is not arbitrary or irrational, but is based on years of painstaking practice and hands-on experience that build skills. A third function of intuition is to synthesize isolated bits of data and practice into an integrated picture, often in an "Aha!" experience. Fourth, some managers use intuition as a check on the results of more rational analysis. Most senior executives are familiar with the formal decision analysis models and tools, and those who use such systematic methods for reaching decisions are occasionally leery of solutions suggested by these methods which run counter to their sense of the correct course of action. Finally, managers can use intuition to bypass in-depth analysis and move rapidly to engender a plausible solution. Used in this way, intuition is an almost instantaneous cognitive process in which a manager recognizes familiar patterns. One of the implications of the intuitive style of executive management is that "thinking" is inseparable from acting. Since managers often "know" what is right before they can analyze and explain it, they frequently act first and explain later. Analysis is inextricably tied to action in thinking/acting cycles, in which managers develop thoughts about their companies and organizations not by analyzing a problematic situation and then acting, but by acting and analyzing in close concert.

Given the great uncertainty of many of the management issues that they face, senior managers often instigate a course of action simply to learn more about an issue. They then use the results of the action to develop a more complete understanding of the issue. One implication of thinking/acting cycles is that action is often part of defining the problem, not just of implementing the solution.

Which of the following best describes the organization of the first paragraph of the passage?
(A) An assertion is made and a specific supporting example is given.
(B) A conventional model is dismissed and an alternative introduced.
(C) The results of recent research are introduced and summarized.
(D) Two opposing points of view are presented and evaluated.
(E) A widely accepted definition is presented and qualified.


[spoiler]I don't know OA.Please confirm the right answer.IMO D[/spoiler]

IMO -
D

As per me none of the answers seem right.

selango wrote:The majority of successful senior managers do not closely follow the classical rational model of first clarifying goals, assessing the problem, formulating options, estimating likelihoods of success, making a decision, and only then taking action to implement the decision. Rather, in their day-by-day tactical maneuvers, these senior executives rely on what is vaguely termed "intuition" to manage a network of interrelated problems that require them to deal with ambiguity, inconsistency, novelty, and surprise; and to integrate action into the process of thinking.
Generations of writers on management have recognized that some practicing managers rely heavily on intuition. In general, however, such writers display a poor grasp of what intuition is. Some see it as the opposite of rationality; others view it as an excuse for capriciousness.

Isenberg's recent research on the cognitive processes of senior managers reveals that managers' intuition is neither of these. Rather, senior managers use intuition in at least five distinct ways. First, they intuitively sense when a problem exists. Second, managers rely on intuition to perform well-learned behavior patterns rapidly. This intuition is not arbitrary or irrational, but is based on years of painstaking practice and hands-on experience that build skills. A third function of intuition is to synthesize isolated bits of data and practice into an integrated picture, often in an "Aha!" experience. Fourth, some managers use intuition as a check on the results of more rational analysis. Most senior executives are familiar with the formal decision analysis models and tools, and those who use such systematic methods for reaching decisions are occasionally leery of solutions suggested by these methods which run counter to their sense of the correct course of action. Finally, managers can use intuition to bypass in-depth analysis and move rapidly to engender a plausible solution. Used in this way, intuition is an almost instantaneous cognitive process in which a manager recognizes familiar patterns. One of the implications of the intuitive style of executive management is that "thinking" is inseparable from acting. Since managers often "know" what is right before they can analyze and explain it, they frequently act first and explain later. Analysis is inextricably tied to action in thinking/acting cycles, in which managers develop thoughts about their companies and organizations not by analyzing a problematic situation and then acting, but by acting and analyzing in close concert.

Given the great uncertainty of many of the management issues that they face, senior managers often instigate a course of action simply to learn more about an issue. They then use the results of the action to develop a more complete understanding of the issue. One implication of thinking/acting cycles is that action is often part of defining the problem, not just of implementing the solution.

Which of the following best describes the organization of the first paragraph of the passage?
(A) An assertion is made and a specific supporting example is given.
(B) A conventional model is dismissed and an alternative introduced.
(C) The results of recent research are introduced and summarized.
(D) Two opposing points of view are presented and evaluated.
(E) A widely accepted definition is presented and qualified.


[spoiler]I don't know OA.Please confirm the right answer.IMO D[/spoiler]

I think E.

Passage starts with definition of Rational Model and then it contrasts with another model- Intuition. The latter definition is defined with few terms. The passage also tells that many management critics recognized the latter model, albeit they recognized the definition of Intuition. Then the paragraph takes a turn and says the definition is not properly understood. The author does not give his approval on this definition.

See the below lines:

Generations of writers on management have recognized that some practicing managers rely heavily on intuition. In general, however, such writers display a poor grasp of what intuition is. Some see it as the opposite of rationality; others view it as an excuse for capriciousness.

IMO B

"...do not closely follow the classical rational model of first clarifying goals..." ==> A conventional model

"...Rather, in their day-by-day tactical maneuvers, these senior executives rely on what is vaguely termed..." ==> alternative introduced.

Has to be B...Was between B and E...
E is wrong coz you donno whether the definition is widely accepted...
classical rational model is mentioned in the first line... This can be paraphrased to conventional model..and the alternative model is mentioned in "Rather, in their day-by-day tactical maneuvers, these senior executives rely on what is vaguely termed “intuition� to manage a network of interrelated problems that require them to deal with ambiguity, inconsistency, novelty, and surprise;"

Anand....As per D...D says two opposing views are presented but never evaluated....we don't know which one is better in the first paragraph...so no evaluation took place in the first para....

B. The answer paraphrases the first paragraph.