Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions based on the passage: "Bank failures raise serious concerns about supervisory oversight." The case studies of Credit Suisse and Silicon Valley Bank highlight the deficiencies in supervisory supervision. In many instances, supervisors are hesitant to come into conflict with bank management when weaknesses are identified, preferring to do nothing rather than take corrective action at a point in time when key issues are building into a problem. Regulators must adopt an attitude change in which they place more emphasis on the results rather than the details. Overemphasis on trivial matters might lead regulators to overlook more fundamental issues, such as whether financial institutions have adequate capital in case of a shock. Regulating requirements must be simplified. Complex regulation requirements in relation to capital may overlook systemic risk in their approaches when stress tests result in activities gravitating towards less heavily regulated institutions in the non-bank sector. Improved supervisory and bank communications would promote better supervision as a tool for managing risk. Recommendations include being up front about supervisory goals, openness to change within the bank organization, and increased transparency in supervisory contracts as a way of promoting swift problem resolution. These would aid shareholders as well as the overall economy. In conclusion, rather than pursuing a micro-management strategy, a move towards a clearly defined regulation that supports positive incentives is what is needed to ensure that banks behave within frameworks that promote financial stability.
Which of the following is most true in regard to stating the structure of logic found in the author's conclusion?
It urges a transition from procedural pedantry towards a results-oriented strategic framework.
This question asks about the logical structure of the passage's conclusion on bank supervision.
The passage repeatedly contrasts two attitudes: fussing over "trivial matters" and detail, versus placing "more emphasis on the results rather than the details".
It warns that overemphasis on trivial matters makes regulators overlook fundamental issues such as whether banks hold adequate capital for a shock, and it urges that requirements "must be simplified".
So the argument moves from procedural pedantry, nit-picking over detail, toward a results-oriented, strategic focus on outcomes that keep banks stable, which is option (3).
Option (2) claims complete deregulation, but the passage still wants regulation, just simpler and outcome-focused. Option (1), giving managers more freedom, is not the point being urged.
Option (4), shifting assurance responsibility onto the banks themselves, is not the structural move described; the emphasis is on how regulators should think.
The conclusion therefore urges a transition from procedural pedantry towards a results-oriented strategic framework.
Why, according to the writer can't people be motivated to use a resource prudently?
1. They feel that others may overuse the resource
2. It is possible to substitute the resource
3. Abundance of the resource availability
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
When do people use resources exhaustively?
The self-interest of people affects the use of renewable resources
People rooted in a locality
Which among the following is closest in meaning with the word 'deplete'?