对一个风平浪静的GWD答案提出强烈质疑！

Firms traditionally claim that they
            

downsize (i.e., make permanent

personnel cuts) for economic reasons,

Line laying off supposedly unnecessary staff

(5) in an attempt to become more efficient

and competitive. Organization theory

would explain this reasoning as an

example of the “economic rationality”

that it assumes underlies all organi-

(10) zational activities. There is evidence

that firms believe they are behaving

rationally whenever they downsize; yet

recent research has shown that the

actual economic effects of downsizing

(15) are often negative for firms. Thus,

organization theory cannot adequately

explain downsizing; non-economic

factors must also be considered.

One such factor is the evolution of

(20) downsizing into a powerful business

myth: managers simply believe that

downsizing is efficacious. Moreover,

downsizing nowadays is greeted

favorably by the business press; the

(25) press often refers to soaring stock

prices of downsizing firms (even though

research shows that stocks usually

rise only briefly after downsizing and

then suffer a prolonged decline).

(30) Once viewed as a sign of desperation,

downsizing is now viewed as a signal

that firms are serious about competing

in the global marketplace; such signals

are received positively by key actors—

(35) financial analysts, consultants,

shareholders—who supply firms with

vital organizing resources. Thus, even

if downsizers do not become economi-

cally more efficient, downsizing’s mythic

(40) properties give them added prestige

in the business community, enhancing

their survival prospects.

Firms traditionally claim that they
            

downsize (i.e., make permanent

personnel cuts) for economic reasons,

Line laying off supposedly unnecessary staff

(5) in an attempt to become more efficient

and competitive. Organization theory

would explain this reasoning as an

example of the “economic rationality”

that it assumes underlies all organi-

(10) zational activities. There is evidence

that firms believe they are behaving

rationally whenever they downsize; yet

recent research has shown that the

actual economic effects of downsizing

(15) are often negative for firms. Thus,

organization theory cannot adequately

explain downsizing; non-economic

factors must also be considered.

One such factor is the evolution of

(20) downsizing into a powerful business

myth: managers simply believe that

downsizing is efficacious. Moreover,

downsizing nowadays is greeted

favorably by the business press; the

(25) press often refers to soaring stock

prices of downsizing firms (even though

research shows that stocks usually

rise only briefly after downsizing and

then suffer a prolonged decline).

(30) Once viewed as a sign of desperation,

downsizing is now viewed as a signal

that firms are serious about competing

in the global marketplace; such signals

are received positively by key actors—

(35) financial analysts, consultants,

shareholders—who supply firms with

vital organizing resources. Thus, even

if downsizers do not become economi-

cally more efficient, downsizing’s mythic

(40) properties give them added prestige

in the business community, enhancing

their survival prospects.

Q36:

The passage suggests which of the following about the claim that a firm will become more efficient and competitive by downsizing?

1. Few firms actually believe this claim to be true.
            
2. Fewer firms have been making this claim in recent years.
            
3. This claim contradicts the basic assumption of organization theory.
            
4. This claim is called into question by certain recent research.
            
5. This claim is often treated with skepticism by the business press.