True
False
Cannot Say
True
False
Cannot Say
True
False
Cannot Say
True
False
Cannot Say
True
False
Cannot Say
True
False
Cannot Say
True
False
Cannot Say
True
False
Cannot Say
Manufacturing capability in Asian economies has developed immensely in its refinement but it remains an extremely multifaceted process subject to everlasting room for improvement. The most important initiative has been the implementation of ISO 9000 standards that have been utilised as quality regulators and error minimisation mechanisms. Nevertheless the profound emphasis given to refinement results in increased costs approaching those of Western manufacturers which raises questions as to their feasibility.
Statement: Implementing ISO 9000 standards has led to fewer errors.
We know that ISO 9000 standards have been utilised as an error minimisation mechanism, but we do not know whether the standards have actually succeeded in reducing the number of errors. The fact that initiative is stated to be “important” doesn’t mean we’ve yet seen any positive results.
The European Commission (EC), the executive body of the EU, has re-adopted a decision to fine Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, together with Toshiba Corporation, for their participation in a cartel relating to the markets for gas-insulated switchgears. This was after part of the original decision was annulled by the European General Court (EGC) in light of a claim that there was a breach of equal treatment in the setting of the two companies' fines. The EGC had annulled the fines even though the EC’s findings were upheld, because in setting the fines the EC had used sales figures for a different reference year than for other cartelists. Today's decision ensures that Mitsubishi and Toshiba receive appropriate fines for their participation in the cartel; the newly imposed fines are calculated on the basis of the same parameters as in the original decision, with the exception of the reference year.
Statement: The European Commission revised its original decision, once the EGC gave its ruling.
The text states that the EGC annulled the part of the original European Commission decision regarding fines. As a result, while the European Commission re-adopted its original decision, it changed the size of the fines imposed on the companies in relation to that decision, based on sales figures for a different reference year.
The European Commission (EC), the executive body of the EU, has re-adopted a decision to fine Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, together with Toshiba Corporation, for their participation in a cartel relating to the markets for gas-insulated switchgears. This was after part of the original decision was annulled by the European General Court (EGC) in light of a claim that there was a breach of equal treatment in the setting of the two companies' fines. The EGC had annulled the fines even though the EC’s findings were upheld, because in setting the fines the EC had used sales figures for a different reference year than for other cartelists. Today's decision ensures that Mitsubishi and Toshiba receive appropriate fines for their participation in the cartel; the newly imposed fines are calculated on the basis of the same parameters as in the original decision, with the exception of the reference year.
Statement: The European Commission has been strict towards Mitsubishi and Toshiba, compared with other cartelists.
According to the text, the EGC found that Toshiba and Mitsubishi had not received “equal treatment”; however, this doesn’t explicitly state that they were treated more strictly than other cartelists, or that some other cartelists hadn’t been treated equally as strictly.
The European Commission (EC), the executive body of the EU, has re-adopted a decision to fine Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, together with Toshiba Corporation, for their participation in a cartel relating to the markets for gas-insulated switchgears. This was after part of the original decision was annulled by the European General Court (EGC) in light of a claim that there was a breach of equal treatment in the setting of the two companies' fines. The EGC had annulled the fines even though the EC’s findings were upheld, because in setting the fines the EC had used sales figures for a different reference year than for other cartelists. Today's decision ensures that Mitsubishi and Toshiba receive appropriate fines for their participation in the cartel; the newly imposed fines are calculated on the basis of the same parameters as in the original decision, with the exception of the reference year.
Statement: The EC and the EGC concur on Mitsubishi’s and Toshiba’s culpability regarding participation in a cartel.
The passage explicitly states that the EC’s findings were upheld by the EGC, indicating that both bodies were in agreement over the companies’ culpability. The only disagreement between the EC and the EGC relates to the nature of the punishment for such culpability (more specifically, the method of calculating the fines).
The European Commission (EC), the executive body of the EU, has re-adopted a decision to fine Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, together with Toshiba Corporation, for their participation in a cartel relating to the markets for gas-insulated switchgears. This was after part of the original decision was annulled by the European General Court (EGC) in light of a claim that there was a breach of equal treatment in the setting of the two companies' fines. The EGC had annulled the fines even though the EC’s findings were upheld, because in setting the fines the EC had used sales figures for a different reference year than for other cartelists. Today's decision ensures that Mitsubishi and Toshiba receive appropriate fines for their participation in the cartel; the newly imposed fines are calculated on the basis of the same parameters as in the original decision, with the exception of the reference year.
Statement: All EC rulings involving fines must be approved by the EGC.
The passage describes an instance in which the EC modified its decision based on an EGC ruling. While this serves as an example of EGC's judicial power, you cannot conclude (based solely on the primary passage) that every EC decision is subject to the EGC’s review and approval. It is possible that in other cases, the EC may act independently.
Over the past few years, the government has turned to shock tactics to fight the battle against smoking and the burden smokers pose to the country's economy—manifested in sick days and health issues. The latest anti-smoking campaign showed tumours growing from a cigarette. Needless to say, this advert was contentious. On the one hand, the advert has become a viral sensation since its launch and has attracted plenty of attention to the subject. The government estimates approximately 300,000 people will attempt to quit smoking because of the campaign. On the other hand, some argue that using a hard-hitting approach is not the best way because people become very afraid. If someone thinks they might have cancer or a symptom of cancer, they're likely to push it out of their mind. Health experts claim the new campaign is not effective in targeting all smokers and recommend using it alongside other measures.
Statement: The advertisement is not effective because it scares people.
The follow-on statement essentially includes two conclusions based on the passage: (i) the advertisement is not effective; and (ii) this lack of effectiveness results from the fact that the advert scares people. The passage presents two opposing bodies of opinion relating to the anti-smoking campaign and neither of these bodies of opinion are presented as absolute truths, so we cannot make an objective conclusion (based solely on the passage) as to the campaign’s effectiveness. In addition, only a subjective opinion is presented in respect of whether any lack of effectiveness is down to the fact that the advert scares people, so you cannot conclude that the second element of the follow-on statement is objectively true either.
Over the past few years, the government has turned to shock tactics to fight the battle against smoking and the burden smokers pose to the country's economy—manifested in sick days and health issues. The latest anti-smoking campaign showed tumours growing from a cigarette. Needless to say, this advert was contentious. On the one hand, the advert has become a viral sensation since its launch and has attracted plenty of attention to the subject. The government estimates approximately 300,000 people will attempt to quit smoking because of the campaign. One the other hand, some argue that using a hard-hitting approach is not the best way because people become very afraid. If someone thinks they might have cancer or a symptom of cancer, they're likely to push it out of their mind. Health experts claim the new campaign is not effective in targeting all smokers and recommend using it alongside other measures.
Statement: The advert was controversial.
The passage states that 'this advert was contentious' and then highlights the attention received by the advert and the debate it sparked. You can therefore safely conclude that the advert was ‘controversial’, as this is essentially a synonym of ‘contentious’.
Over the past few years, the government has turned to shock tactics to fight the battle against smoking and the burden smokers pose to the country's economy—manifested in sick days and health issues. The latest anti-smoking campaign showed tumours growing from a cigarette. Needless to say, this advert was contentious. On the one hand, the advert has become a viral sensation since its launch and has attracted plenty of attention to the subject. The government estimates approximately 300,000 people will attempt to quit smoking because of the campaign. One the other hand, some argue that using a hard-hitting approach is not the best way because people become very afraid. If someone thinks they might have cancer or a symptom of cancer, they're likely to push it out of their mind. Health experts claim the new campaign is not effective in targeting all smokers and recommend using it alongside other measures.
Statement: The anti-smoking ad was funded by the Department of Health.
The passage states: 'The government has turned to shock tactics to fight the battle against smoking and the burden smokers pose to the country's economy'. However, this statement does not confirm which specific government department funded the campaign. Even though logic might dictate that an anti-smoking campaign would likely fall under the remit of the Department of Health, you cannot reach this conclusion based solely on the statements made in the primary passage of text.