ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1737|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

补充材料篇45

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2006-8-13 19:43:00 | 只看该作者

补充材料篇45

Passage 45

    While there is no blueprint for transforming a largely

  government-controlled economy into a free one, the

  experience of the United Kingdom since 1979 clearly

  shows one approach that works: privatization, in which

(5)
                
state-owned industries are sold to private companies. By

  1979, the total borrowings and losses of state-owned

  industries were running at about t3 billion a year. By

  selling many of these industries, the government has

  decreased these borrowings and losses, gained over t34

(10) billion from the sales, and now receives tax revenues from

  the newly privatized companies. Along with a dramatically

  improved overall economy, the government has been able

  to repay 12.5 percent of the net national debt over a

  two-year period.

(15)
                
In fact, privatization has not only rescued individual

   industries and a whole economy headed for disaster, but

   has also raised the level of performance in every area. At

   British Airways and British Gas, for example, productivity

   per employee has risen by 20 percent. At associated

(20)
                
British Ports, labor disruptions common in the 1970’s and

   early 1980’s have now virtually disappeared. At British

   Telecom, there is no longer a waiting list—as there always

   was before privatization—to have a telephone installed.

   Part of this improved productivity has come about

(25) because the employees of privatized industries were given

   the opportunity to buy shares in their own companies. They

   responded enthusiastically to the offer of shares; at British

   Aerospace, 89 percent of the eligible work force bought

   shares; at Associated British Ports, 90 percent; and at

(30)
                
British Telecom, 92 percent. When people have a personal         

   stake in something, they think about it, care about it, work

   to make it prosper. At the National Freight Consortium,

   the new employee-owners grew so concerned about their

   company’s profits that during wage negotiations they

(35) actually pressed their union to lower its wage demands.

   Some economists have suggested that giving away free

  shares would provide a needed acceleration of the privati-

  zation process. Yet they miss Thomas Paine’s point that

“what we obtain too cheap we esteem too lightly.” In

(40)
                
order for the far-ranging benefits of individual ownership

  to be achieved by owners, companies, and countries,

  employees and other individuals must make their own

  decisions to buy, and they must commit some of their own

  resources to the choice.

 

对第三题有问题.

3. It can be inferred from the passage that the author

  considers labor disruptions to be

  (A) an inevitable problem in a weak national economy

  (B) a positive sign of employee concern about a

     company

  (C) a predictor of employee reactions to a company’s

     offer to sell shares to them

  (D) a phenomenon found more often in state-owned

     industries than in private companies

  (E) a deterrence to high performance levels in an

     industry

答案是E, 在HIGHLIGHT可以找到对应的话. 可是D好象也对啊.在文中

At associated

(20)
                    
British Ports, labor disruptions common in the 1970’s and

   early 1980’s have now virtually disappeared. At British

   Telecom, there is no longer a waiting list—as there always

   was before privatization—to have a telephone installed.

1) 1970和1980就是私有化的时候,2)从文章结构来看也本段话就是说明私有化后的改变啊. 为什么不对呢?请问问题是不是在PRIVATE COMPANY 这个词有不准确,私有公司不等于私有化???

 

沙发
发表于 2006-8-13 19:49:00 | 只看该作者

并没有说国有企业比私有企业中这种情况更为普遍。也可能是这种情况:只有这个企业中存在这种情况,通过私有化,被解决了。

这一段整体是说私有化的好处的。既然作者把消除labor disruptions(我不太明白这到底是个什么东西)作为私有化有利的例子出现,我们可以infer,labor disruptions是不利的。是deterrence of good performence

这个无可厚非,比D好多了


[此贴子已经被作者于2006-8-13 19:49:49编辑过]
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2006-8-13 20:33:00 | 只看该作者

可是如果按你的逻辑来说.那么这中LD情况在私人企业可以推论肯定更少啊,要不然怎么可以作为私有化的优点来讲呢?

地板
发表于 2006-8-13 20:43:00 | 只看该作者

这就是“主观想象”和infer的区别。

国有企业与私有企业中,谁存在这种情况多,与题中的逻辑没有关系。因为我们不能知道LD真正的原因是什么。如果说造成LD的原因是国有化,那么我们当然可以断定私有企业中LD的情况比国企要少。

实际上我看见这个题目之后还没看答案,就是按照E这么想的。这就是ETS出题的风格。

A下降了好,可以最直接推出的一个原因就是A是负面指标。

直接推出来的信息比间接想出来的信息更接近答案。咱们不能跟答案较劲

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-5-28 21:31
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部