TANCET 2022 Solved Papers

Question Numbers: 1-20PART - IFor the past two years, Bennett Joseph, head of the regional firm R and S Packing Company, had been seriously considering the use of U.S. government grade labeling for its high-quality canned fruits and vegetables. Having enjoyed an excellent reputation with the public under the trademark "Delish" for more than 30 years, these canned goods were known throughout the area by distributors and consumers alike as among the best.The grade-labeling problems had come to the force as the result of a new food super-market chain called Gaynes. The new chain, a national organization, was making a depth penetration in the region by spending a sizeable portion of its large advertising and promotion budget for pushing its own private brands of frozen and canned fruits and vegetables. Its advertising emphasized that the public could find both grade and descriptive labeling on each package and can. The descriptive labels listed the type of food, the can size, the number of servings per can, the net contents, and the name and address of the chain.Joseph had always paid careful attention to the descriptive labeling on R and S products but had been most reluctant to commit the company to the use of grade labeling. Joseph's reluctance was supported by the company's advertising and promotion manager and the production boss, who believed with him that grade labeling could hardly bring out the fresh flavor and taste upon which the company prided itself and had been able to capture through its own special heating, processing and canning techniques.A factor that seriously concerned Joseph in the use of grade labels on canned fruits and vegetables was the possible use of a high grade on one of the grading characteristics to offset a low score on another. This method could hardly help R and S, whose pack was known by distributors and consumers alike to be much better even than the highest grades of its competitors.While Joseph was pondering this problem, he mulled over what he had read about grade labeling. In the first place, grading and labeling of canned foods had been developed to protect and help the consumer. Through the Department of Agriculture, federal standards had been set up for standardization, grading and inspection work. To encourage voluntary use of these standards, the Department of Agriculture hired inspectors who carried out the federal inspection program at production periods. For canned fruits and vegetables, the grades were A, B and C, which were based on such criteria as uniformity, succulence and color - not flavor or food value.Joseph certainly agreed that grade labeling could provide additional information for the consumer. R and S could also use it in company advertisements to supplement its own descriptive labels. But didn't everyone know about the taste and quality of R and S products? He also wondered what happened when a company using grade labeling saw the qualities of fruits and vegetables change from year to year. At one period, that quality might be high for most growers; it might also be low during another. Too, some factors that were very important in their effect on consumer choice could not be subjected to a grading discipline. For example, the range of individual tastes was impossible to standardize. Certainly taste, Joseph felt, should be at least as important as the other, more tangible criteria used to grade canned goods.Joseph's legal advisor pointed out that there was another aspect to the problem of grade labeling. He had been informed by colleagues employed at the Department of Commerce that while present use of standards was voluntary, such use might become mandatory in the not-too-distant future. His contacts explained that their information was based not on present government plans, but on possible Congressional legislation. The scenario went like this. Several consumer organizations were active in promoting "truth in labeling" legislation. Their objective was the provision of more information on packaging so that consumers could make better decisions on what products to buy. Simply put, it was argued that consumers could not distinguish between competing products on the basis of present labeling requirements. Present labels contained only the manufacturer's name and address, the fact that the contents conformed to Federal Drug and Agriculture food standards, and net weight. No mandatory criteria existed for grade standards. Consumers could judge quality only on the basis of trial-and-error, by trying the product or by reading the advertised claims of competing brands. Government officials believed that if several of the larger consumer organizations combined efforts to lobby in Congress for passage of consumer legislation, there was an even chance that a "truth in labeling" law could be passed within a year.Joseph weighed the findings of his legal advisor. He realized that, while taste was the ultimate criterion for choosing one brand over another, the initial choice of a particular brand could be influenced by product grade. Moreover, since R and S products were of the highest quality, they would undoubtedly carry the highest possible federal grades. Joseph was most concerned about the timing of a decision to accept product grading, which was at the present time still voluntary. Would it be to R and S's advantage to adopt a voluntary labeling program, or would it be better to wait until grading became mandatory for all processors? What advantages and disadvantages would result from taking a wait-and-see attitude, rather than immediately commencing a voluntary grading program?Before Joseph completed his study of the problem, one of his leading competitors, Taam Foods, commenced a voluntary label standardization program. Joseph was worried about the possibility that some of Taam Foods' products might be designated grade A quality. Taam Food could quickly exploit this advantage at the expense of R and S . Thus, grading had now become a competitive issue. Joseph felt that he had to make a quick decision one way or the other.DIRECTIONS: The questions that follow relate to the preceding passage. Evaluate, in terms of the passage, each of the items given. Then select your answer from one of the following classifications.(a) A MAJOR OBJECTIVE in making the decision: one of the goals sought by the decision maker.(b) A MAJOR FACTOR in making the decision: an aspect of the problem, specifically mentioned in the passage, that fundamentally affects and/or determines the decisions.(c) A MINOR FACTOR in making the decision: a less important element bearing on or affecting a Major Factor, rather than a Major Objective directly.(d) A MAJOR ASSUMPTION in making the decision: a projection or supposition arrived at by the decision maker before considering the factors and alternatives.