GWD-4-22

Many managers are influenced by

         dangerous myths about pay that lead

         to counterproductive decisions about

Line         how their companies compensate

  (5)       employees.  One such myth is that

labor rates, the rate per hour paid to

workers, are identical with labor costs,

the money spent on labor in relation to

the productivity of the labor force.

(10)       This myth leads to the assumption that

a company can simply lower its labor

costs by cutting wages.  But labor

costs and labor rates are not in fact

the same:  one company could pay

(15)       its workers considerably more than

another and yet have lower labor

costs if that company’s productivity

were higher due to the talent of its

workforce, the efficiency of its work

(20)       processes, or other factors.  The

         confusion of costs with rates per-

         sists partly because labor rates are

a convenient target for managers who

want to make an impact on their com-

(25)       pany’s budgets.  Because labor rates

are highly visible, managers can easily

compare their company’s rates with

those of competitors.  Furthermore,

labor rates often appear to be a

(30)       company’s most malleable financial

variable:  cutting wages appears an

easier way to control costs than such

         options as reconfiguring work pro-

cesses or altering product design.

(35)           The myth that labor rates and labor

costs are equivalent is supported by

business journalists, who frequently

confound the two.  For example, prom-

inent business journals often remark on

(40)      the “high” cost of German labor, citing

as evidence the average amount paid

to German workers.  The myth is also

perpetuated by the compensation-

consulting industry, which has its own

(45)       incentives to keep such myths alive.

First, although some of these con-

sulting firms have recently broadened

their practices beyond the area of

compensation, their mainstay con-

(50)       tinues to be advising companies on

changing their compensation prac-

tices.  Suggesting that a company’s

performance can be improved in

some other way than by altering its

(55)       pay system may be empirically cor-

rect but contrary to the consultants’

interests.  Furthermore, changes

to the compensation system may

appear to be simpler to implement

(60)       than changes to other aspects of an

organization, so managers are more

likely to find such advice from con-

sultants palatable.  Finally, to the

extant that changes in compensation

(65)       create new problems, the consultants

will continue to have work solving the

problems that result from their advice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q22:

The author of the passage suggests which of the following about the advice that the consulting firms discussed in the passage customarily give to companies attempting to control costs?

A 肯定不对, the advice definitely can bring intended changes in companies's compensation systems.

其他也不对, I choose E too.

同意A

怀疑E

题目问的是作者对咨询公司建议的看法。

理由：A：首先要理解“intended changes in companies's compensation systems”中的“intended changes ”是什么？intended changes 的主体显然是公司。根据首段来看，公司普遍认为“labor rates (lr)are identical with labor costs（lc）”,公司认为改变（降低）lr，那么就会改变（降低）lc，这也是.而作者的咨询公司所兜售的advice 立场是 lr，lc是不同的，所以咨询公司所兜售的advice及由此导致的changes都达不到公司原先的预想。所以It often fails to bring about the intended changes in companies’ compensation systems。这也就是作者对咨询公司建议的看法。故选A。

E的定位没有错误，我也犹豫过，但感觉原文的那个句子paraphrase到E总有些别扭。

望NN指教！！！

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=25&ID=82628

看到了nn的帖子，顿悟，谢谢。

可惜怎么也煽不掉我的3，4层的帖子。