T-9-Q5-Q7
In American Genesis, which covers
the century of technological innovation
in the United States beginning in 1876,
Line
Thomas Hughes assigns special promi-
(5) nence to Thomas Edison as archetype
of the independent nineteenth-century
inventor. However, Hughes virtually
ignores Edison’s famous contem-
porary and notorious adversary in
(10) the field of electric light and power,
George Westinghouse. This com-
parative neglect of Westinghouse is
consistent with other recent historians’
works, although it marks an intriguing
(15) departure from the prevailing view
during the inventors’ lifetimes (and for
decades afterward) of Edison and
Westinghouse as the two “pioneer
innovators ” of the electrical industry.
(20) My recent reevaluation of Westing-
house, facilitated by materials found
in railroad archives, suggests that
while Westinghouse and Edison shared
important traits as inventors, they
(25) differed markedly in their approach to
the business aspects of innovation.
For Edison as an inventor, novelty
was always paramount: the overriding
goal of the business of innovation was
(30) simply to generate funding for new
inventions. Edison therefore undertook
just enough sales, product development,
and manufacturing to accomplish this.
Westinghouse, however, shared the
(35) attitudes of the railroads and other
industries for whom he developed
innovations: product development
standardization, system and order
were top priorities. Westinghouse
(40) thus better exemplifies the systematic
approach to technological development
that would become a hallmark of modern
corporate research and development.
Ecoefficiency (measures
to minimize environmental
impact through the reduction
Line
or elimination of waste from
(5) production processes) has
become a goal for companies
worldwide, with many realizing
significant cost savings from
such innovations. Peter Senge
(10) and Goran Carstedt see this
development as laudable but
suggest that simply adopting
ecoefficiency innovations could
actually worsen environmental
(15) stresses in the future. Such
innovations reduce production
waste but do not alter the num-
ber of products manufactured
nor the waste generated from
(20) their use and discard; indeed,
most companies invest in eco-
efficiency improvements in
order to increase profits and
growth. Moreover, there is
(25) no guarantee that increased
economic growth from eco-
efficiency will come in similarly
ecoefficient ways, since in
today’s global markets,
(30) greater profits may be turned
into investment capital that
could easily be reinvested
in old-style eco-inefficient
industries. Even a vastly
(35) more ecoefficient industrial
system could, were it to grow
much larger, generate more
total waste and destroy more
habitat and species than would
(40) a smaller, less ecoefficient
economy. Senge and Carstedt
argue that to preserve the
global environment and sustain
economic growth, businesses
(45) must develop a new systemic
approach that reduces total
material use and total accu-
mulated waste. Focusing
exclusively on ecoefficiency,
(50) which offers a compelling
business case according
to established thinking, may
distract companies from
pursuing radically different
(55) products and business
models.
T-9-Q9
The primary purpose of the passage is to
- explain why a particular business strategy has been less
successful than was once anticipated
- propose an alternative to a particular business strategy that
has inadvertently caused ecological damage
- present a concern about the possible consequences of pursuing a
particular business strategy
- make a case for applying a particular business strategy on a
larger scale than is currently practiced
- suggest several possible outcomes of companies’ failure to
understand the economic impact of a particular business strategy 这题答案到底是啥啊?我选A。怎么现在觉得主旨题那么难,我几乎要错就是错这类题,模模糊糊的感觉啊!!郁闷。另外,我标红的那一句“were it to grow
much larger”是个什么语法啊?不懂。只能猜测意思是说如果“×××成长的更大会产生更多的垃圾”。请NN赐教。