The question pertains to understanding the term "a marketable product" as used in the given passage. The correct interpretation of this term requires analyzing the context in which it is mentioned.
The passage describes the challenges faced by new entrepreneurs seeking funding from venture capitalists. It emphasizes the importance of having a marketable product to secure such funding. Specifically, the text underlines that venture capital is usually available only after ensuring that the product already appeals to a market, implying that it must be sellable and profitable for investors to show interest.
Thus, here is a breakdown of each option:
Therefore, based on the context and explanations provided, the correct answer is: Option 1: "A product that appeals to buyers and sells at a certain price range to generate profit."
To understand the meaning of the phrase "and few are worth the paper they are printed on," we need to consider the context provided in the passage. The author discusses the difficulties new entrepreneurs face when seeking venture capital funding. The passage highlights that:
The phrase "worth the paper they are printed on" is an idiomatic expression. When applied to ideas or documents, it typically suggests that those ideas or documents do not have any real value or substance. Thus, "and few are worth the paper they are printed on" implies that very few of the business plans submitted are valuable or promising.
Considering the given options:
Therefore, the correct answer is: Hardly any idea is good.
To solve the question and determine which statement is true based on the passage provided, let's analyze both statements step-by-step:
Based on the above analysis and conclusions:
Therefore, the correct option is: According to the above passage, both A and B are true.
To determine which advice is given by the writer in the passage, we need to carefully analyze the content and understand the key points emphasized by the author. The passage provides guidance to new entrepreneurs regarding starting a business and securing funding. Let's break down the key advice given:
Based on these points, the correct advice from the passage is: "Make sure that there is a real need for your product. Start small." This advice aligns perfectly with the emphasis on validating the idea and taking incremental steps towards building a successful business from the ground up.
The other options do not align with the passage because:
The question asks for the essential ingredients for developing a business idea based on the passage provided. Let's analyze the passage to identify the key points:
After thorough consideration, the option that aligns most closely with the passage's recommendations is:
Correct Answer: Consult widely. Share your ideas with entrepreneurs. Identify markets.
Let's evaluate each of the given options:
Thus, the correct approach based on the passage is to consult widely, share ideas with experienced entrepreneurs, and identify target markets.
The passage discusses various challenges and strategies for entrepreneurs seeking to develop their business ideas and secure funding. The key advice given is to focus on building and validating the idea through personal efforts and small-scale operations before seeking venture capital. Now, let's analyze the options provided to find the correct answer regarding the two business ideas shared in the passage:
Thus, the correct answer is: Starting a restaurant and creating a software product
The passage illustrates these examples to emphasize the importance of getting hands-on experience and incremental learning before scaling up or seeking external funding.
To determine which of the given statements is NOT correct according to the passage, we should first understand the key points from the passage.
The passage provides insights into challenges faced by new entrepreneurs seeking funding and offers advice on how they can validate and build their business ideas without relying solely on external venture capital. It emphasizes:
Now, let’s evaluate each option:
Based on the analysis, the correct answer to the question "which of the following is NOT a correct statement?" is: It also shows that the phenomenon is heterogeneous.
The question asks us to determine the meaning of "exit strategies" as mentioned in the provided passage. To answer this, we need to understand the context in which 'exit strategies' is used in the passage.
In the passage, the focus is primarily on the challenges entrepreneurs face when seeking venture funding and how they can build their businesses from the ground up. The passage concludes with the idea that after successfully establishing a business, an entrepreneur might receive calls from venture capitalists wanting to invest. At this point, the entrepreneur should consider "exit strategies."
An exit strategy, in the context of entrepreneurship, refers to an entrepreneur's plan for selling their ownership in a company. This can mean selling the company to investors or another company. This is a common tactic once the business reaches a certain level of success and viability in the market, making it attractive for larger companies or investors to purchase or invest in.
Let's evaluate each option given in the question:
Therefore, the correct answer is: An entrepreneur's strategic plan to sell his or her ownership in a company to investors or another company.
This understanding of exit strategies is crucial for entrepreneurs, as it helps them plan for the future and potential growth or sale of their company, securing financial gains for their efforts.
To determine the correct answer from the given options based on the passage provided, we need to scrutinize the passage for key statements and ideas.


When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.