One definition of qualify is "make (a statement or assertion) less absolute; add reservations to". That is used here apparently.

the GRE commonly uses the word qualify in the manner that the answer choice implies. Below is a definition/explanation from Magoosh:

"This is perhaps the most commonly confused secondary meaning and the one that is most important to learn for the GRE. To qualify is to limit, and is usually used in the context of a statement or an opinion.
I love San Francisco.

I love San Francisco, but it is always windy.

The first statement shows my unqualified love for San Francisco. In the second statement, I qualify, or limit, my love for San Francisco."

The first part of paragraph 2 states:

"However, TQM cannot simply be grafted onto these systems or onto certain other non-TQM management systems. Although, as Drucker contends, TQM shares with such systems the ultimate objective of increasing profitability, TQM requires fundamentally different strategies "

In preparation for answering this question, let's grab a summary of the ideas in the passage. The two-paragraph structure should serve as a basic organizational aid here.

¶1:
• Describes/defines the management system known as TQM
• TQM works with X system in way M, and with Y system in way N

¶2:
• BUT, you can't just stick TQM onto pre-existing implementations of those other systems.
• All three aim to maximize profits
• The other two are short-term (implying TQM isn't)
• Different stakeholders / different people are invested in the systems.


That's the basic content of the passage. We want the answer choice that...
• CONTAINS IDEAS that ARE supported by the passage text,
• says NOTHING that ISN'T supported.
There's no obligation for the answer to hit every single point.

One by one:




"Contradictions in a system" would mean inconsistencies WITHIN ONE system. While the passage notes some points of contrast among three different management systems, it does not mention any internal inconsistencies WITHIN any one of the three.

Another fatal problem with this answer choice is the word "new". Nowhere does the author give any clue as to the relative age or pedigree of any of the three management systems mentioned.




Objectives are mentioned only briefly, at the start of the second paragraph—where the author notes that all three of the mentioned systems have the same ultimate objective (i.e., to maximize profits).

This answer choice thus fails on two counts. First, since it only covers the material in one relatively small part of one paragraph, it's certainly not the main idea/purpose. Second, "compare and contrast" isn't substantiated, since no contrast is drawn between the ultimate objectives of the three systems.




There are just two locations where the passage touches on organizational specs.

One of these locations is at the end of the first paragraph, where the author states that "the organizational structure associated with TQM is consistent with the social and psychological emphases of the 'human relations' school of management". Even this part doesn't satisfy choice C, however, because the author doesn't identify that "organizational structure"—in other words, say WHAT IT IS!

That leaves only the "lateral structure of organizations" near the end of the passage, which not only is MUCH too small a fraction of the text to qualify as a main idea, but, moreover, only touches on one of the three management systems.
This choice isn't supported.




Looking back at the bullet points... ¶1 starts out with a detailed definition of TQM, which makes TQM the "particular management system" out of the three. The rest of ¶1 consists of two specific identifications of points of consistency between TQM and other systems, one specific similarity for each of the other two systems. These consistencies are definitely relationships with those other systems.

¶2 starts out with a treatment of shared objectives (another relationship), and then dives into some points of distinction (still another relationship).

This choice is thus fully supported.




Nowhere in this passage is there any language to suggest that any one of the three systems is better or worse than any other, or that the author has any sort of personal preference for or against any of them. There are only objective comparisons of different specs.


It's D.

The first paragraph, after defining TQM (which is necessary as groundwork, but won't figure into relationships), goes on to state that TQM is consistent with each of two systems in one specifically cited way apiece. This paragraph mentions only consistencies. No limitations of any kind are stated. Using only the statements in ¶1, it might seem that TQM could just be tossed together with either of the other two systems, since, after all, the only thing mentioned so far is that it's consistent with both of them.

That's where ¶2 comes in with, "Well, you can't just throw them together willy-nilly" and goes on to explain exactly why not. So, ¶2 places some limitations / boundaries on the compatibility introduced in ¶1.


Let's look in the choices for this:




The first paragraph doesn't even contain a "phenomenon"! The first paragraph is about three different business-management systems—which could be described as "systems", "methodologies", "protocols", "plans", etc., but not events/occurrences/phenomena—and a couple of points of consistency across them.




The two consistencies near the end of ¶1 could plausibly be called principles.
Exceptions to "these two systems are consistent in this way", however, would have to be specific instances in which the two systems are INCONSISTENT in that very same way.

In other words, the two kinds of 'exceptions' that would satisfy this choice are...
—Contradictions between TQM and the statistical sampling techniques of the rationalist school,
or
—Contradictions between TQM and the organizational structural emphases of the human-relations school.

The passage contains neither of these anywhere.




The "claim" from ¶1 is that TQM is consistent with each of two other systems. The limitations explicitly placed on that compatibility in ¶2 are, indeed, "qualifications", so this answer choice is fully supported.




The claim in ¶1 is that TQM is consistent with each of two other schools of management on one count apiece. The only way to strengthen either half would be to cite additional specific points of consistency between TQM and either/both of those schools—something that the passage does not do.




The first paragraph contains nothing that could remotely be called a "problem" to be "solved". (Please see the summary of why ¶1 doesn't contain a "phenomenon", under choice A; the same explanation works here.)

This one gives us some very nice specs to look for:
rationalist and human relations schools ... alike

So we need to go find where the author says THOSE two—i.e., the two that aren't TQM—have something explicitly in common. (They may or may not share that thing with TQM as well.)

¶1 comes up empty here. Consistencies are mentioned between each of these two schools and TQM, but not between these two non-TQM schools explicitly.

So, look in ¶2—where there's really just one thing, a commonality among all 3 schools:
TQM shares with such systems the ultimate objective of increasing profitability
The rest of ¶2 is only about the specs of TQM, in ways that are declared to be different from the other two schools—but, again, we don't have any specific contrasting elements that the other two have in common.

The correct answer to this question therefore MUST be "both have the ultimate objective of increasing profitability". Max profits.

That's choice A, pretty much verbatim.