The view has prevailed for the better part of the twentieth century that small firms do not perform an important role in Western economies. Official policies in many countries have favored large units of production because there were strong reasons to believe that large firms were superior to small firms in virtually every aspect of economic performance--productivity, technological progress, and job security and compensation. However, in the 1970s, evidence began to suggest that small firms in some countries were outperforming their larger counterparts. Perhaps the best example of this trend was in the steel industry, where new firms entered the market in the form of "mini-mills," and small-firm employment expanded, while many large companies shut down plants and reduced employment. Although no systematic evidence exists to determine unequivocally whether smaller units of production are as efficient as large firms or are, in fact, more efficient, some researchers have concluded that the accumulated evidence to date indicates that small firms are at least not burdened with an inherent size disadvantage.
Thus, an alternative view has emerged in the economics literature, arguing that small firms make several important contributions to industrial markets. First, small firms are often the source of the kind of innovative activity that leads to technological change. Small firms generate market turbulence that creates additional dimensions of competition, and they also promote international competition through newly created niches. Finally, small firms in recent years have generated the preponderant share of new jobs.
However, empirical knowledge about the relative roles of large and small firms is generally based upon anecdotal evidence and case studies, and such evidence has proved inadequate to answer major questions concerning the role of small firms across various industries and nations. An additional difficulty is that it is not obvious what criteria one should use to distinguish small firms from large ones. While a “small firm” is often defined as an enterprise with fewer than 500 employees, research studies of small firms use a wide variety of definitions.
Which of the following best describes the organization of the first paragraph of the passage?
我有更好的解析 
暂无雷哥网文字解析
问的是第一段的organization
第一段首先提出一个view：small firm do not perform an important role in 西方经济。
但是在1970s evidence开始suggest 在一些国家的小公司运行得比大公司好，举了钢铁行业为例
即使没有系统的evidence存在去明确确定小公司和大公司一样efficient，但是一些研究者下结论，小公司至少没有因为天生规模小而被拖累。
也就是首先提车一个观点，然后出现了和这个观点不符的evidence，然后提出新的perspective
选项A 正确
选项B 一开始没有讨论OPPOsing 的两方观点，然后提出evidence 反驳两方的观点
选项C 一开始的不是猜想，evidence也不是去支持这个猜想的
选项D 一开始没有提出alternative view，
选项E 一开始没有讨论OPPOsing 的两方观点，最后讨论后说两个相似
离谱，读了一篇文章就做了一道题
1
0
回复
2021-08-26 13:23:20
问的是“第一段”的结构！！注意审题啊。。。
0
0
回复
2017-12-13 23:05:53
科目：
阅读RC
来源：
精选题库
1m51s
平均耗时
81.3%
平均正确率
该题由网友HXLjfHB提供 上传GMAT题
分享
周末、晚班滚动开班 
24+35+35+6课时 
