- UID
- 800800
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-8-30
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
之前大家对揽瓜阁精读的反馈很好，就想着自己的时间开始把一些精读的文章根据JJ出题目～ 然后focus上线，IR需求 大家也大。就想着 把揽瓜阁的阅读 逻辑 IR 都放在这贴里打卡
每日的解析在揽瓜阁2024群更新
RC题源：揽瓜阁精读的文章+机经的题目
CR题源：本月中文JJ改编
IR题源： 往届鸡精改编
打卡内容：
一周打卡五篇，科目不限。
每天上午管理员群内发布题目，群成员做完提交打卡，第二天发布解析
打卡内容建议：
阅读：写文章结构、笔记
逻辑：写逻辑链分析
IR：写做题思路和选项分析
【现在你的笔记越全，越能帮助你捋清思路，之后回顾总结。】
打卡方式：
可以在论坛留言区打卡，截图到群内
也可以在小红书/微博打卡，需写明任务内容是哪篇，并带上#揽瓜阁 #LGG #lgg 的 tag，截图到群内。
考试群：
GMAT入群／揽瓜阁入群方式：https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1382779-1-1.html
公众号：1.考什么试
2.商校百科
申请群
1. ChaseDream 2023 MBA 申请／校友答疑／面试群： https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-863011-1-1.html
2.英国，新加坡，美国，香港，德国商科申请群：
请加小白斩鸡进群（killgmat）
3. 行业分享交流／职业规划群：
https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1388171-1-1.html
小红书：
1.留学+考试 最新消息 关注妥妥妥了 （小红书号：323014154）
2.求职+MBA 最新消息 关注元（小红书号：89540433000)
1.CR
Motor Company is considering replacing steel with aluminum for its car bodies. Although aluminum is more expensive than steel, it has a better strength-to-weight ratio. The price of aluminum raw material is twice that of steel, but the amount of aluminum needed to manufacture a car is only half the amount of steel required. Therefore, the company believes it can maintain its profit margins by switching to aluminum. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the company's belief?
A. The cost of retooling the manufacturing process to work with aluminum is significantly higher than the cost of continuing to work with steel.
B. The price of aluminum raw material is expected to increase at a faster rate than the price of steel in the coming years.
C. Consumers perceive cars with aluminum bodies to be less sturdy and reliable compared to those made with steel.
D. The weight reduction achieved by using aluminum could lead to better fuel efficiency, which is a key selling point for consumers.
E. The company's competitors have already begun to switch to aluminum for their car bodies, and have seen an increase in sales.
A recent survey of professionals across various occupations found that university faculty members were the most relaxed, while engineers were the most stressed. The survey concludes that a career in academia is more conducive to a relaxed lifestyle than a career in engineering. However, a follow-up study revealed that the majority of university faculty members surveyed had previously worked in engineering before transitioning to academia. Which of the following, if true, would best explain the apparent discrepancy between the two studies?
A. Engineers who transitioned to academia were more likely to have experienced burnout in their previous careers, leading them to seek a more relaxed work environment.
B. University faculty members who had previously worked as engineers reported higher stress levels than those who had not worked in engineering.
C. The initial survey did not distinguish between different types of engineering, some of which may be more stressful than others.
D. The follow-up study had a significantly smaller sample size than the initial survey, making its findings less reliable.
E. Many engineers who transitioned to academia did so because they found the intellectual challenges of academic research more rewarding than their work in engineering.
答案:CA
2.RC
The factory of the future is not a place where computers, robots, and flexible machines do the drudge work. That is the factory of the present, which, with money and brains, any manufacturing business can build. Of course, any competitor can build one too—which is why it is becoming harder and harder to compete on manufacturing excellence alone. Lower costs, higher quality, and greater product variety are like table stakes in poker—the price that companies pay to enter the game. Most products can be quickly and easily imitated; and the most automated design and production processes cannot decisively beat the second most automated. Who wins and who loses will be determined by how companies play, not simply by the product or process technologies that qualify them to compete.
The manufacturers that thrive into the next generation, then, will compete by bundling services with products, anticipating and responding to a truly comprehensive range of customer needs Moreover, they will make the factory itself the hub of their efforts to get and hold customers—activities that now are located in separate, often distant, parts of the organization.
Production workers and factory managers will be able to forge and sustain new relationships with customers because they will be in direct and continuing contact with them. Manufacturing, in short, will become the cortex of the business. Today’s flexible factories will become tomorrow’s service factories.
About 200 years ago, when horse-drawn carriages were made largely by craftsmen, the most successful carriage maker was invariably the most accommodating. Though he prided himself on being a technician—a manufacturer—his success depended heavily on his willingness and ability to talk with customers at key points: before the sale, so he could get a clear idea of what the client needed and what features would satisfy him; during the manufacturing process, so he could incorporate any necessary changes in the product; and after delivery, so he could learn what features had worked (and what hadn’t) and what the client needed for maintenance, repair, and replacement.
Mass production overtook customized craftsmanship because customers came to value standardized goods over higher priced, personalized goods. As a result, work grew increasingly compartmentalized through the division of labor. Craftsmanship (that is, manufacturing) became separated from downstream activities, like sales and post purchase service, as well as from upstream activities, like new-product development and design. Gradually, manufacturing received more and more of its information and instructions through filters—divisions and departments that were separated, functionally and physically, from the production site. Not surprisingly, manufacturing managers complained that those who defined their work rarely understood it or cared enough about its details, problems, or technical possibilities.
For decades, companies muddled through. In recent years, as Japanese competition put pressure on manufacturing businesses everywhere, manufacturers have worked mightily and successfully to educate workers and break down some of the barriers between their upstream activities and the work of the factory. They have encouraged interfunctional communication between product designers and manufacturing engineers and between R&D and quality managers on the factory floor.
These imaginative efforts to accelerate product innovation and improve manufacturing performance were necessary and important. But they are no longer adequate. Today downstream activities have to be joined to the tasks of the factory too. Increasingly, factory personnel have the means to support the sales force, service technicians, and consumers. This support should, and will, be used. Competition is shifting away from how companies build their products to how well they serve customers before and after they build them.
Some of America’s best-run companies—Hewlett-Packard, Allen-Bradley, Caterpillar, Frito-Lay—already operate factories whose activities reflect the new role of service in manufacturing competition. None of their facilities is a complete service factory. We are still many years from that. But in the range of upstream and downstream activities these factories perform, and in the degree of interaction between production workers and customers, they point the way to the future.
Service for a manufacturing company inescapably revolves around its products—their design, features, durability, repairability, distribution, and ease of installation and use. Even the most traditional factories of yesterday proffered service of a kind, but their conception of service was narrow. To old-guard factory managers, service was little more than a commitment to meeting due dates. Logistics and distribution urged the factory to complete orders in a timely fashion, to give advance notice of delivery problems, and to package materials for ease of shipment and damage control. Customers were simply numbers on a production schedule.
1. The primary purpose of the author in contrasting the successful carriage maker of 200 years ago with modern manufacturers is to:
A. Illustrate the superiority of customized craftsmanship over mass production
B. Highlight the importance of direct customer interaction in manufacturing success
C. Argue for a return to the manufacturing practices of the pre-industrial era
D. Demonstrate the inevitability of the separation between manufacturing and downstream activities
E. Suggest that modern manufacturers have lost sight of the essential role of service in their industry
2. The passage suggests that the "imaginative efforts" (line 55) of manufacturers in recent years have been:
A. Misguided and counterproductive in the face of Japanese competition
B. Successful in completely eliminating the barriers between manufacturing and upstream activities
C. Necessary but insufficient in addressing the challenges faced by modern manufacturers
D. Primarily focused on improving product quality and variety rather than customer service
E. Driven by a desire to emulate the practices of the most successful carriage makers of the past
3. The author's use of the phrase "table stakes in poker" (line 16) serves to:
A. Emphasize the high risks involved in competing solely on the basis of manufacturing excellence
B. Suggest that product quality and variety are no longer significant differentiators in the manufacturing industry
C. Highlight the importance of bluffing and deception in gaining a competitive advantage
D. Argue that success in manufacturing now requires a willingness to gamble on unproven technologies
E. Imply that the entry barriers to the manufacturing industry have been significantly lowered in recent years
4. The passage indicates that the separation of craftsmanship from downstream activities in the era of mass production led to:
A. Increased efficiency and productivity in manufacturing processes
B. Improved communication and collaboration between manufacturers and their customers
C. Greater emphasis on product customization and personalization
D. Manufacturing managers feeling disconnected from those who defined their work
E. Rapid technological innovation and automation in the manufacturing industry
5. According to the passage, which of the following best characterizes the "traditional conception of service" (line 87) in manufacturing?
A. A proactive approach to anticipating and addressing a wide range of customer needs
B. A focus on providing personalized, high-quality products to individual customers
C. An emphasis on timely delivery and efficient distribution of products
D. A commitment to ongoing communication and collaboration with customers throughout the product lifecycle
E. A willingness to adapt products and processes in response to changing customer preferences
6. The author's attitude towards the future role of service in manufacturing can best be described as:
A. Skeptical and unconvinced about its potential impact on competitiveness
B. Cautiously optimistic and hopeful, while recognizing the challenges involved
C. Deeply pessimistic and critical of manufacturers' ability to integrate service into their operations
D. Unequivocally enthusiastic and confident in the transformative power of service
E. Neutral and objective, presenting both the benefits and drawbacks of a service-oriented approach
7. Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the author's central argument in the passage?
A. A study demonstrating that customers prioritize product price and quality over personalized service
B. Research showing that fully automated factories consistently outperform those with a focus on customer interaction
C. Evidence that the integration of upstream and downstream activities significantly increases manufacturing costs
D. A survey indicating widespread resistance among manufacturing workers to engaging directly with customers
E. Examples of highly successful manufacturing firms that have thrived without adopting a service-oriented approach
8. The passage suggests that the key to success for manufacturers in the future will be their ability to:
A. Achieve the lowest possible production costs while maintaining acceptable product quality
B. Develop the most advanced and fully automated manufacturing technologies
C. Foster a company culture that prioritizes innovation and risk-taking over stability and efficiency
D. Seamlessly integrate service-oriented activities with traditional manufacturing processes
E. Anticipate and rapidly adapt to disruptive changes in the global manufacturing landscape
1. B
2. C
3. A
4. D
5. C
6. B
7. E
8. D
3.DI
The global music industry has undergone a profound transformation in recent years, primarily driven by the rapid proliferation of digital music platforms and the concomitant decline in the sales of physical music formats. A proposed bill in the European Parliament seeks to promote the adoption of open-source software within the music industry to ensure that artists and consumers have unfettered access to music creation and distribution tools. The bill's proponents posit that open-source software is inherently free, but empirical research suggests that while the initial acquisition cost of open-source software is indeed lower, constituting a mere 6% of the total cost of ownership, the utilization costs, encompassing installation, maintenance, administration, and downtime, are substantially higher in comparison to proprietary software solutions.
The proposed legislation would necessitate a comprehensive and potentially disruptive software migration process within the music industry, which would entail significant short-term costs and risks. Furthermore, the presence of multiple versions of open-source software could potentially exacerbate compatibility issues between the disparate IT systems employed by various stakeholders in the music industry, such as record labels, distribution platforms, and artists' personal systems, thereby hindering seamless interoperability and data exchange.
Proponents of the bill contend that while cost savings are indeed a salient consideration, the primary impetus behind the legislation is to safeguard artists' and consumers' inalienable right to freely access music creation and distribution tools. The bill explicitly mandates that data encoding should not be inextricably linked to a single software provider, thereby ensuring this fundamental freedom. They acknowledge that the software migration process would be an intensive undertaking but argue that the high cost of software migration, in general, serves to bolster the case for the bill's implementation. As the prolonged use of a particular IT system inevitably leads to an exponential increase in the cost of migrating to a different system, the adoption of open-source software, which allows for data encoding in standard and adaptable formats, would render software migration a more manageable and cost-effective proposition in the long run. Moreover, they assert that migrating from proprietary to open-source software would not entail a greater financial burden than migrating between two disparate proprietary software systems.
According to a recent study conducted by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), global recorded music revenues reached an impressive $21.6 billion in 2020, with digital revenues accounting for a substantial 62.1% ($13.4 billion) of the total. Streaming revenues, a subset of digital revenues, exhibited a robust growth of 19.9%, reaching $13.4 billion and effectively offsetting the decline in physical and downloaded music revenues. The report also shed light on the increasing adoption of open-source software in music production, which has witnessed a marked increase from 12% in 2015 to 28% in 2020, while the usage of proprietary software has correspondingly decreased from 88% to 72% during the same period.
The proponents of the bill further emphasize the potential benefits of open-source software in fostering innovation and collaboration within the music industry. They argue that the open and transparent nature of open-source software encourages the active participation of a vibrant community of developers, artists, and enthusiasts, who can contribute to the continuous improvement and refinement of music creation and distribution tools. This collaborative approach, they contend, has the potential to accelerate the pace of innovation and lead to the development of more sophisticated and user-friendly software solutions that cater to the evolving needs of the music industry.
Moreover, the bill's supporters highlight the importance of ensuring the long-term preservation and accessibility of musical works in the digital age. They argue that by promoting the use of open-source software and standardized data formats, the proposed legislation would mitigate the risks associated with vendor lock-in and the potential obsolescence of proprietary software platforms. This, in turn, would guarantee that musical works remain accessible to future generations, regardless of the specific software or hardware technologies that may emerge in the years to come.
Critics of the bill, however, express concerns about the potential unintended consequences of mandating the use of open-source software in the music industry. They argue that the transition to open-source software could lead to a fragmentation of the software ecosystem, with different stakeholders adopting incompatible versions of open-source tools, thereby hindering interoperability and collaboration. They also point out that the migration process could be particularly challenging for smaller music labels and independent artists, who may lack the technical expertise and financial resources required to successfully navigate the transition to open-source software.
Furthermore, some industry experts question whether the use of open-source software would indeed lead to the desired outcomes of increased innovation, collaboration, and accessibility. They argue that the success of open-source software in other domains, such as enterprise software development, may not necessarily translate to the unique challenges and requirements of the music industry. These experts emphasize that the music industry relies heavily on specialized software tools and platforms that are often developed and maintained by proprietary software vendors who possess deep domain expertise and a proven track record of delivering reliable and feature-rich solutions.
Moreover, critics of the bill express concerns about the potential security risks associated with the adoption of open-source software in the music industry. They argue that the open nature of open-source software, which allows for public scrutiny and modification of the source code, could potentially expose the music industry to increased vulnerability to cyber attacks, data breaches, and intellectual property theft. They emphasize the need for robust security measures and rigorous vetting processes to ensure that open-source software tools are secure and trustworthy before they are widely adopted within the industry.
Another point of contention revolves around the potential impact of the proposed legislation on the competitive dynamics within the music industry. Some industry analysts argue that mandating the use of open-source software could disproportionately benefit larger music labels and technology companies, who have the resources and expertise to quickly adapt to the new software ecosystem and exploit the opportunities it presents. Smaller music labels and independent artists, on the other hand, may struggle to keep pace with the rapid technological changes and may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage in the new software landscape.
Proponents of the bill, however, counter these arguments by pointing out that the music industry has a long history of adapting to technological disruptions and that the transition to open-source software presents a unique opportunity to level the playing field and foster greater collaboration and innovation across the industry. They argue that the widespread adoption of open-source software would democratize access to cutting-edge music creation and distribution tools, enabling independent artists and smaller labels to compete on a more equal footing with their larger counterparts.
Furthermore, supporters of the bill highlight the potential economic benefits of embracing open-source software in the music industry. They argue that by reducing the reliance on proprietary software vendors and the associated licensing fees, the industry could potentially unlock significant cost savings that could be reinvested in artist development, marketing, and other value-adding activities. They also point out that the adoption of open-source software could spur the growth of a vibrant ecosystem of third-party developers and service providers, creating new opportunities for entrepreneurship and job creation within the music industry.
As the debate surrounding the proposed legislation continues to unfold, it is clear that the decision to mandate the use of open-source software in the music industry is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires careful consideration of the potential benefits, risks, and unintended consequences. Policymakers, industry stakeholders, and technology experts will need to engage in a thoughtful and inclusive dialogue to chart a path forward that balances the competing interests and priorities of the various actors within the music industry while ensuring that the industry remains at the forefront of technological innovation and continues to thrive in the digital age.
Questions:
1. Which of the following best describes the primary objective of the proposed legislation in the European Parliament?
A. To reduce the cost of music production and distribution by mandating the use of open-source software
B. To ensure that artists and consumers have unrestricted access to music creation and distribution tools
C. To increase compatibility between the IT systems of various stakeholders in the music industry
D. To promote the use of proprietary software in the music industry to ensure reliability and security
2. According to the passage, what percentage of the total cost of ownership of open-source software is attributed to the initial acquisition cost?
A. 6%
B. 12%
C. 19.9%
D. 28%
3. Based on the information provided in the passage, which of the following statements is true?
A. The use of proprietary software in music production has increased from 2015 to 2020.
B. Digital revenues accounted for less than half of the global recorded music revenues in 2020.
C. The prolonged use of a particular IT system leads to an exponential increase in the cost of migrating to a different system.
D. Migrating from proprietary to open-source software is more expensive than migrating between two proprietary software systems.
4. What was the value of streaming revenues, a subset of digital revenues, in the global recorded music industry in 2020?
A. $13.4 billion
B. $21.6 billion
C. $28 billion
D. $62.1 billion
5. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage about the relationship between open-source software and data encoding?
A. Open-source software allows data encoding in proprietary formats, making software migration more difficult.
B. Data encoding in open-source software is tied to a single software provider, limiting free access.
C. Open-source software enables data encoding in standard and adaptable formats, facilitating easier software migration.
D. The bill does not address the relationship between open-source software and data encoding.
6. According to the passage, what is one of the primary arguments in favor of the bill, despite the high cost of software migration?
A. Open-source software would lead to increased compatibility between the IT systems of various stakeholders in the music industry.
B. The adoption of open-source software would accelerate the pace of innovation and lead to the development of more sophisticated software solutions.
C. The use of open-source software would guarantee the long-term preservation and accessibility of musical works in the digital age.
D. Open-source software would enable smaller music labels and independent artists to compete on a more equal footing with larger counterparts.
7. What concern do critics of the bill express regarding the potential impact of mandating the use of open-source software on the competitive dynamics within the music industry?
A. It could disproportionately benefit larger music labels and technology companies who have the resources to adapt quickly to the new software ecosystem.
B. It may lead to a fragmentation of the software ecosystem, with different stakeholders adopting incompatible versions of open-source tools.
C. It could expose the music industry to increased vulnerability to cyber attacks, data breaches, and intellectual property theft.
D. It may hinder the ability of proprietary software vendors to deliver reliable and feature-rich solutions tailored to the music industry's needs.
8. According to the passage, what potential economic benefit do supporters of the bill highlight in relation to the adoption of open-source software in the music industry?
A. Reducing reliance on proprietary software vendors and associated licensing fees could lead to significant cost savings for the industry.
B. The transition to open-source software would create new opportunities for entrepreneurship and job creation within the music industry.
C. Open-source software would enable independent artists and smaller labels to invest more resources in artist development and marketing.
D. The adoption of open-source software would attract more venture capital investment into the music industry, spurring innovation and growth.
9. Which of the following best describes the main point of contention between proponents and critics of the bill regarding the potential impact of open-source software on innovation and collaboration in the music industry?
A. Whether open-source software would lead to increased vulnerability to cyber attacks and data breaches
B. Whether the success of open-source software in other domains would translate to the unique challenges and requirements of the music industry
C. Whether mandating the use of open-source software would disproportionately benefit larger music labels and technology companies
D. Whether the adoption of open-source software would create new opportunities for entrepreneurship and job creation within the music industry
10. Based on the information provided in the passage, what can be inferred about the current state of the debate surrounding the proposed legislation?
A. There is a clear consensus among industry stakeholders and policymakers regarding the benefits of mandating the use of open-source software in the music industry.
B. The decision to mandate the use of open-source software in the music industry is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of potential benefits, risks, and unintended consequences.
C. The music industry is largely resistant to the adoption of open-source software, preferring to rely on proprietary software solutions.
D. The debate surrounding the proposed legislation has been largely resolved, with policymakers and industry stakeholders reaching a compromise on the key issues.
1. B
2. A
3. C
4. A
5. C
6. C
7. A
8. A
9. B
10. B
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2024-6-5 08:16:15
收藏
收藏
