Reading Comprehension

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

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

I had trouble answering this particular question. Any explanations for rejecting/accepting each of the answers is welcome

Thanks for posting a nice RC and appreciate that you did not post the OA

My pick for this question is OPTION C

To answer your question this is my reasoning...

A -- This is easy to eliminate because the author is basically putting forward 2 models with different views (the one with international perspective and the other with National boundaries) and then the authors goes ahead to explain why such inconsistency in the model discussed in Para 1.

B -- This is out of scope. Author is nowhere discussing the impact of one type of industry on another

C -- Yes, this is the correct choice. See my explanation for option A.

D -- The author is not providing any specific examples rather he is putting very generic information such as "many industries are or are becoming international" .. Eliminate

E -- No, the author is not defending anything here but simply providing explanations about the observed inconsistency.

Will you please share the OA now

Thanks for your reply. The answer is E. I went for the same choice as you did

Answer is C from the source where I got this passage...
The author is indeed providing 'one possible explanation' ..

The author no where is defending the validity of study's conclusion !!