The behaviour of a fictitious stock market index (comprising a weighted average of the market prices of a selected list of companies including some multinational corporations (MNCs) over a 15 day period is shown in the graph. The behaviour of the MNCs in

examrobotsa's picture

Submitted by examrobotsa on

Q: 51 (IAS/1997)
The behaviour of a fictitious stock market index (comprising a weighted average of the market prices of a selected list of companies including some multinational corporations (MNC’s) over a 15 day period is shown in the graph. The behaviour of the MNC’s in the same period is also shown in the second graph.
Which one of the following is a valid conclusion ?

question_subject: 

Economics

question_exam: 

IAS

stats: 

0,32,41,22,7,12,32

keywords: 

{'fictitious stock market index': [0, 1, 0, 0], 'market revival': [0, 1, 0, 0], 'market prices': [0, 1, 1, 3], 'mnc': [0, 1, 0, 0], 'multinational corporations': [0, 1, 0, 0], 'share prices': [0, 1, 0, 0], 'companies': [0, 0, 0, 1], '11th day': [0, 1, 0, 0], 'weighted average': [0, 1, 0, 0], 'behaviour': [1, 1, 0, 1], '12th day': [0, 1, 0, 0]}

The given question is about interpreting the behavior of a stock market index and the MNCs over 15 days from a graph (which has not been provided). The correct answer is option 4.

Option 1 says that MNCs fell steeper in the given period, but we cannot confirm this without looking at the graph.

Option 2 mentions that every non-MNC company`s share prices rose by over 5% on the 12th day. With only the information given, we cannot confirm this because we don`t have specific data about each non-MNC company.

Option 3 suggests that the government announced a policy disfavoring MNCs on the 11th day. This is pure speculation since the question doesn`t provide any information related to government policies.

Option 4 states that whatever the reason for the market revival on the 12th day, it seems to only apply to non-MNC companies. This is the best conclusion based on the information given. We don`t know the specific reasons the market changed, but it seems from the general description that non-MNC companies were affected differently than MNCs. So, this statement is more plausible given the context.