Reading Comprehension

The overseas Chinese number only 55 million and are politically powerless in many of the Asian lands through which they are sprinkled. Yet they are one of the world's great economic engines, commanding resources far beyond their numbers. They are most likely to have a hand in converting China into a giant that could dominate the 21st century.

The enormous wealth of the overseas Chinese has been accumulated and is deployed through a distinctive form of social and business organization. They are held together not by law, government and public ideals; or by a concept of national solidarity, but by personal acquaintance, trust and obligation. The result has been a highly decentralized business structure based on secretive, entrepreneurial, family-owned firms that are run autocratically but cooperate smoothly and informally with each other, often across national borders.

Wary of governments and laws, the Chinese found that dialect, kinship, a common origin in a clan, a village or a county gave a sure footing of trust for a business deal conducted even at great distance. The certainty this gave and the informality it allowed shaped the loftiest transactions as well as the most humble.

The knots in this worldwide net are family-owned firms. Even in listed companies, the founding family's control and accumulation of capital are principal aims. A system based on a multitude of owner-managed firms with intimate links to others like them has the two big advantages of fast decision-making and acute sensitivity to markets. The businesses in which the overseas Chinese have done best - trading, property, commodities, shipping, mining and timber are lines in which, even on a global scale, an instinct for the right price, time and place counts for more than complex management skills.

But despite all, however distressing China's politics maybe, the overseas Chinese have always felt the cultural, linguistic and often familial pull of the place they came from, thus elevating the family spirit to national scale. This feeling has already borne much fruit in the form of universities, hospitals and investments provided for the mainland by overseas Chinese businessmen.




With reference to the tone of the passage, the attitude of the author towards the overseas Chinese can be described as

(A) skeptical.

(B) condescending.

(C) detached.

(D) reproachful.

(E) awe-inspired.

I would go with Detached as the answer.

Throughout the passage, the author has never spoken negatively or too positively about the businessmen so condescending, reproachful and awe-inspiring can be eliminated.

This leaves skeptical and i don't think that the author is skeptical anywhere in this passage.

Hence, C!

OA is B,

Can any expert provide explanation please ?

condescend has patronize as one of the meanings or synonyms , so the author has clearly stated that "business deals are done by for eg


" The result has been a highly decentralized business structure based on secretive, entrepreneurial, family-owned firms that are run autocratically but cooperate smoothly and informally with each other, often across national borders. " with this C can be the answer.

[/b]

karthikpandian19 wrote:The overseas Chinese number only 55 million and are politically powerless in many of the Asian lands through which they are sprinkled. Yet they are one of the world's great economic engines, commanding resources far beyond their numbers. They are most likely to have a hand in converting China into a giant that could dominate the 21st century.

The enormous wealth of the overseas Chinese has been accumulated and is deployed through a distinctive form of social and business organization. They are held together not by law, government and public ideals; or by a concept of national solidarity, but by personal acquaintance, trust and obligation. The result has been a highly decentralized business structure based on secretive, entrepreneurial, family-owned firms that are run autocratically but cooperate smoothly and informally with each other, often across national borders.

Wary of governments and laws, the Chinese found that dialect, kinship, a common origin in a clan, a village or a county gave a sure footing of trust for a business deal conducted even at great distance. The certainty this gave and the informality it allowed shaped the loftiest transactions as well as the most humble.

The knots in this worldwide net are family-owned firms. Even in listed companies, the founding family's control and accumulation of capital are principal aims. A system based on a multitude of owner-managed firms with intimate links to others like them has the two big advantages of fast decision-making and acute sensitivity to markets. The businesses in which the overseas Chinese have done best - trading, property, commodities, shipping, mining and timber are lines in which, even on a global scale, an instinct for the right price, time and place counts for more than complex management skills.

But despite all, however distressing China's politics maybe, the overseas Chinese have always felt the cultural, linguistic and often familial pull of the place they came from, thus elevating the family spirit to national scale. This feeling has already borne much fruit in the form of universities, hospitals and investments provided for the mainland by overseas Chinese businessmen.




With reference to the tone of the passage, the attitude of the author towards the overseas Chinese can be described as

(A) skeptical.

(B) condescending.

(C) detached.

(D) reproachful.

(E) awe-inspired.

Frankly, I worked backwards with this question because I happen to see the OA even before I read the passage

Even after seeing the OA, I tried understanding the passage and the question. I could, perhaps, have a plausible solution- I am not really sure about this though, but, I felt- the underlined phrases, implied a condescending attitude.

When the author says " commanding resources beyond their numbers" - it seems as if the author is speaking from a high horse, does it not? I felt the tone implied by these phrases could be condescending. Again, I could say it ONLY because I saw the answer first. I don't really know if I could have guessed..

I am sorry if that was not very helpful. I am just thinking aloud along with you as I ponder over this question.