OG12 01 ecoefficiency 原文分析提问

sophiacoming · 发表于 2009-7-16 23:19:00

在反复学习了mumujj的南丁格尔详细分析以及逻辑简图后，我也开始尝试自己做了。第一篇是OG12 的P1，关于ecoefficiency的。

在分析过程中，我主要有以下几点很困惑：

行文方面：文章的最后一句在文中起什么作用？废话？
内容方面：这句话中的established thinking是指前文的论证过程吗？那
a compelling business case又是指什么呢？我怎么完全看不出文章里还有个案例呢？？是我对“案例”这个概念的理解有偏差还是什么？
语法方面：文章第21行were it to grow much larger，看不懂……

仿佛高手读文章看到一段的第一句就会知道这段写什么……可是我有个很晕的情况：我对第一句话的表述内容常常不能准确把握。第一遍读完第一句话，
概念相当之模糊，因为单词不认识或是表述方式我没能很熟悉吧，所以读出了歧异。以至于看完一段后，才能确定自己理解是否正确；有时因为读第一句的第一印象出现偏差，所以读这一段的后面时就觉得很纠结混乱，不知道在说什么了。

不知道这种病怎么治比较好？？？先去狂做语法？还是读文章时怎么训练？

我觉得自己虽然花了很长时间研究这篇，可是并不能确定自己是否理解了ets想传达的主要精神……我也不确定自己是不是有分析错了的地方……
如果大家有兴趣，不妨帮我补充指正一下吧……　特别是分析方法，我觉得自己常常做无用功，但是时间已经紧迫到我不忍心说了，所以还请指点！！！因为自己水平菜，所以分析写的很初级，连单词解释都在上面……　大家忍着点……

原文贴下面了……我没在论坛里找到电子版的，所以就自己打了，如果有错请见谅，不过我有认真读了几遍自查未查出……
如果有人告诉我那里有现成了，大谢！！！这篇就当练打字了，看在我英文打字超慢的份上……

Ecoefficiency (measures to minimize environmental

impact through the reduction or elimination of waste

from the production processes) has become a goal for

companies worldwide, with many realizing significant

cost savings from such innovations. Peter Senge and

Goran Carstedt see this development as laudable but

Suggest that simply adopting ecoefficiency

Innovations could actually worsen environmental

stresses in the future. Such innovations reduce

production waste but do not alter the number of

products manufactured nor the waste generated

form their use and discard; indeed, most companies

invest in ecoefficiency improvements in order to

increase profits and growth. Moreover, there is no

guarantee that increased economic growth from

ecoefficiency will come in similarly ecoefficient ways,

since in today’s global markets, greater profits may

be turned into investment capital that could easily be

reinvested in old-style eco-inefficient industries. Even

a vastly more ecoefficient industrial system could,

were it to grow much larger, generate more total

waste and destroy more habitat and species than

would a smaller, less ecoefficient economy. Senge

and Carstedt argue that to preserve the global

environment and sustain economic growth,

businesses must develop a new systemic approach

that reduces total material use and total accumulated

waste. Focusing exclusively on ecoefficiency, which

offers a compelling business case according to

established thinking, may distract companies from

pursuing radically different products and business

models.

1. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) explain why a particular business strategy has been less successful than was once anticipated

(B) propose an alternative to a particular business strategy that has inadvertently caused ecological damage

(C) present a concern about the possible consequences of pursuing a particular business strategy

(D) make a case for applying a particular business strategy on a larger scale than is currently practiced

(E) suggest several possible outcomes of companies’ failure to understand the economic impact of a particular business strategy

2. The passage mentions which of the following as a possible consequence of companies’ realization of greater profits through ecoefficiency?

(A) The company may be able to sell a greater number of products by lowering prices.

(B) The companies may be better able to attract investment in the global market.

(C) The profits may be reinvested to increase economic growth through ecoefficiency.

(D) The profits may be used as investments capital for industries that are not ecoefficient.

(E) The profits may encourage companies to make further innovations in reducing production waste.

3. The passage implies that which of the following is a possible consequence of a company's adoption of innovations that increase its ecoefficiency?

(A) Company profits resulting from such innovations may be reinvested in that company with no guarantee that the company will continue to make further improvements in ecoefficiency.

(B) Company growth fostered by cost savings from such innovations may allow that company to manufacture a greater number of products that will be used and discarded, thus worsening environmental stress.

(C) A company that fails to realize significant cost savings from such innovations may have little incentive to continue to minimize the environmental impact of its production processes.

(D) A company that comes to depend on such innovations to increase its profits and growth may be vulnerable in the global market to competition from old-style eco-inefficient industries.

(E) A company that meets its ecoefficiency goals is unlikely to invest its increased profits in the development of new and innovative ecoefficiency measures.

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/7/16 23:22:03编辑过]

zouyochin · 发表于 2009-7-18 11:52:00

三道题的答案是什么，谢谢。

kristiwu1977 · 发表于 2009-7-19 11:12:00

this is how i think, for your reference. Welcome comments if i missed any, thanks

essay structure:

1.Ecoefficiency is a goal-> cost saving (benefit to companies)
2.Peter S and Goran C :think Ecoefficiency as apprised But it could worse environmenal stress--> concern about ecoefficiency
:Explanation1: why it could worsen: 1. innovations not alter the number nor the waste generated (因為innovations 是工具, 因為有這種工具製造商更賣力的生產因為可以透過ecoefficiency 省下的錢,隨著產出增加而增多)
:explanation2: greater profits may be turned into investment caiptal that could be reinvested in old-style( 投資其他old-ecoefficiency industries--> worse)
or even other larger ecoefficient (more production of waste because of production in large scale-->worse)
3.Peter S argues that focusing exclusively on ecoefficiency, which (refers to focusing exclusively on ecoefficiency) offers complelling biz case( attracting coz it is beneficial to companies) according to established thinking( means old thinking: focus on ecoefficiency), may distract-----models.--> 呼應2. P.S and GC regards it as a practice which could worsen the environment.

You can try to find the answers from the summary above

sophiacoming · 发表于 2009-7-20 22:16:00

C,D,B

我没有觉得答案有什么难理解的，只是不知道怎么能用最快的速度找到答案……特别是对于只有三道题的段文章……

不知道大家在做短文章时，怎么提速呢？

我觉得我读题目及选项每题就接近１分钟，要是遇到每个选项超过三行的更是巨慢，怎么样可以读题快一点呢？除了提高阅读能力，有没有什么tips？

anistonlucky · 发表于 2009-7-21 01:06:00

1.C

2.D

3.B

1.Ecoefficiency seems good for enviornment.

2.However, S and G proposed that it's not, companies appliy it just because of getting more profit by reducing the cost in the reduction of waste.

3.S and G explantion: Potential impact that comes from this ecoefficiency strategy.

4.Alternative to this strategy: a new systematic approach-focus exclusively on the ecoeffeciency.

抓抓sandra · 发表于 2011-8-2 18:11:10

挖出来这道题目的老讨论帖，和LZ 一样想问问最后一句话的含义，#2的回答挺好的，不过我想知道最后说道的 “distract companies from pursuing radically different products and business models”，和作者论证有什么关系吗？这句话读起来感觉好像在说ecoefficiency使得公司减少了对于不同的产品和商业模型的追求，那反过来作者就是要表达公司应该对不同的产品和商业模型有追求咯？可是这个意思和原文联系很不紧密呀。。有点困惑。。

glendasc · 发表于 2012-5-15 22:57:59

对于这题的第一题就有疑惑...我在b和c之间选择了好久...但是败给了b！
因为觉得primary purpose可能就是要推出new systemic approach才是最好的吧
然后我就认为b中的"particular business strategy“就是指的是new systemic approach...然后就选了。..
看了答案解释。。。完全就是和我想法相反的,因为答案说没有offer particular business strategy，只有new systemic approach...难道两者不一样吗？求解！！！！

hscryzer · 发表于 2012-7-16 15:21:16

这篇文章再总结一下吧，几个可能有争议选项我个人的看法

应该是环境经济学家--不能称他们为经济环境学家，写的文章，这个大家应该知道背景是环境学科作为一门新兴学科文不文理不理工不工，经常出现一些看似左右摇摆立意不清概念定义模糊的文章但是作为investment现在看重的实业方向：IT，环保，生命科学，会成为一个贡献比较多垃圾阅读文章的发源地，因为没有背景知识的童鞋很难知道作者的出发点是哪里

第一题B选项是其实文中没有太多propose一种替代方案，实际上他们只是在否定现有状况；E选项因为PS&GC上来都在说环境保护，实际上这些企业都是从经济利益出发在执行和追求ECO这个目标，所以应该是没有真正理解到“环境对经济可持续发展的重要性”，而不是没有理解到"经济影响" -- Line25那里暗示了他们认为环境保护对经济持续发展的重要性；
line21那句插入语是句虚拟语气的倒装句，多看看语法题这种句式很常见的
第二题的A选项看似也说得过去，但实际第二部分在论证那些企业错误做法的三点并不是并列关系而是递进一级推一级的关系，企业通过ECO节省了成本（当然会有联想可以拿这些钱来降低售价抢市场啊，但这逻辑本身是建立在中国人固有的薄利多销的观点上的，西方资本家是不认可这一点的，有利润就是利润，可以用来干其他事干嘛打价格战，再说你会降价其他人不会降价么）-->企业家会把多出来的利润投资到资本市场，但是这些投资资金很有可能是被一些旧式生产模式和重排放污染企业使用-->造成的后果比一些本身ECO效率低的企业还糟(虽然这种比较没什么逻辑)

最后一句话的意思我个人理解是偏面的专注ECO，把ECO作为一种强制性商业模式来套用，并不适用于各行各业不相同的企业，这也可以反推出第一题中的B是错的，因为作者真没有提出任何有效方案该怎么做，只是说这样做不对

本文还有一个可能造成中国学生思路混乱的地方在Line9“such...”这里，有人会不明白什么叫做"alter the number of products manufactured"，难道不要生产了？实际上美国佬现在就是在搞一套市场方针默认大多数市场针对现有成熟商品的需求是稳定或者稳定可预计的生产的，应该有明确量的生产计划而且采购根据生产销售计划来执行库存不要，而不是准备大量库存搏市场，至于销售端的压力那是销售部门的问题，实际上老外生产企业销售部门是蛮弱化且依赖经销渠道和品牌效应的，所以这些都没问题，不需要想太多

文章不难不过整理一下自己的思路排除掉一些先入为主和逻辑判断的错误