关于OG RC 第1题的疑问

xyan5678

Ecoefficiency (measures to minimize environmental impact through the reduction or elimination of waste from production processes) has become a goal for companies worldwide, with many realizing significant cost savings from such innovations. Peter Senge and Goran Carstedt see this development as laudable but suggest that simply adopting ecoefficiency innovations could actually worsen environmental stresses in the future. Such innovations reduce production waste but do not alter the number of products manufactured nor the waste generated from their use and discard; indeed, most companies invest in ecoefficiency improvements in order to increase profits and growth. Moreover, there is no guarantee that increased economic growth from ecoefficiency will come in similarly ecoefficient ways, since in today’s global markets, greater profits may be turned into investment capital that could easily be reinvested in old-style eco-inefficient industries. Even a vastly more ecoefficient industrial system could, were it to grow much larger, generate more total waste and destroy more habitat and species than would a smaller, less ecoefficient economy. Senge and Carstedt argue that to preserve the global environment and sustain economic growth, businesses must develop a new systemic approach that reduces total material use and total accumulated waste. Focusing exclusively on ecoefficiency, which offers a compelling business case according to established thinking, may distract companies from pursuing radically different products and business models.


1，The primary purpose of the passage is to

A.      explainwhyaparticular business strategy has been less successful than was once anticipated

B.       propose an alternative to aparticular business strategy that has inadvertently caused ecological damage

C.      present a concern about the possible consequences of pursuing aparticular business strategy

D.      make a case for applying aparticular business strategy on a larger scale than is currently practiced

E.   suggest several possible outcomes of companies’ failure to understand the economic impact of aparticular business strategy

我选的是A，每看出A 有什么错。看了OG的解释也觉得没有说服力。OG解释说文中没说这个business strategy has been less successful ，但文中有这样一句话adopting ecoefficiency innovations could actually worsen environmental stresses，可以理解为采用这个策略会得到适得其反的效果，难道不算less successful 吗？请高手指教

DUKB24

如果是说less successful 应该通篇文章说的是利润减少或者公司运营成本增加或者竞争力削弱，而这里的文章只是说明公司盲目采取这些策略会污染环境！环境才是主题，你看通篇文章的结构。。说ECO这种方法可以减少生产垃圾，但可能增加产品数目从而造成环境污染，公司从ECO这个方法得到的利润很可能投入非ECO的产业得到更大的利润，但是破坏了环境，第三就是ECO的大公司，当规模足够大的时候，可能比那些非ECO的小公司更能破坏动物的栖息地（环境）