小白求助1，希望NN们不吝赐教，走过路过都来说两句，没准你的一句话就会成为点金石哦！

福亲王

OG 12 th
Q3
Text
  Ecoefficiency has become a goal for many companies worldwild, with many realizing significant cost savings from such innovations. Peter and Goran see this development as laudable but suggest that simply adopting  ecoefficiency innovations could actually worsen environmental stress 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; 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 marketes, greater profits maybe turn into invesment capital that could be easily be reinvested in old-style eco-efficient industries. Even a vastly more  ecoefficient industrial system could, were it grow to much larger, generate more total waste and destroy more habitat and species than would a smaller, less ecoefficient economy. Peter and Goran argue that to preserve the global environment and sustain economic growth, business must developa new systemic approach that reduces total material use and total accumulated waste. Foucsing exclusively on ecodfficiency, which offer a compelling business case according to established thinking, may distract companies from pursuing radically different products and business models.


Question 3
   The passage implies that which of the following is a possible concequence of a company's adoption of innovations that increase its ecoefficiency?
  A. Company profits resulting from such innovations may be reinvested that company with no guarantee that the company will continue to make futher improvements in ecodfficiency.
  B. Company growth fostered by cost savings from such innovations may allow  that company  to manufacture a greater number of products that will be used and discarded, thus worsening environmental stress.【 correct option 】

我的问题是，A为什么不对？OG上的解释是说，文章没有说company会在获益后放弃这个ecoefficient improvements，但是A说的是futhur improvement，而不是放弃，OG的解释完全说不通啊！而且从文章上我特殊标注的地方来看，A没错啊！
所以纠结了。。。。。。。。。。。。。
先谢谢大家了！

yangrryq

个人觉得这种题是陷阱题。a答案本身对应文章中的内容是原文的同意改写。但是这个题问这个concequence of a company's adoption of innovations that increase its ecoefficiency，问的是这个增加ecoefficiency的创新的结果。对应：simply adopting  ecoefficiency innovations could actually worsen environmental stress in the future。a为什么错，因为a只是原文用来证明结论的论据。别人问你做某事的后果是什么？ 正解恶化了环境压力。打个比方，一个文章说吃不饱会饿，然后举了一个例子说小明家里穷，买不起食物，饿得晕倒了。然后又举个例子小何要减肥，每天吃不饱，也饿得晕倒了
问吃不饱会怎样？正解，吃不饱会饿。错误选项：小何要减肥，每天吃不饱，饿得晕倒了。吃不饱不必然会晕倒，但是必然会饿。题目中concequence of a company's adoption of innovations that increase its ecoefficiency不必然会reinvested that company with no guarantee that the company will continue to make futher improvements in ecodfficiency，但是必然会worsening environmental stress。所以og说文章没有说company会在获益后放弃这个ecoefficient improvements。有可能会有可能不会。所以选b.注意理解文章的论点和论据！

bluejake

产量增的理解来自    Such innovations reduce “production waste“ but do not alter the number of products manufactured nor the waste generated from their use and discard; 这两种waste 的不一样 如果公司有了利润产量增加 对比production waste的减少 产品本身的waste 才是对环境的最大危害
A选项的问题主要是读出那个 continue to 与文中那些 old-style ”eco-inefficient“ industries 是不一样的就能理解了

kenny1123

有高人路过指点一下吗

kenny1123

文中并没有说制造更多的产品啊？？？我觉得B的greater number应该不妥吧！

这里很明显increase profits and growth 是通过ecoefficiency节约成本增加的利润，并不能说明产量增加啊！
求NN解释！

Peter and Goran see this development as laudable but suggest that simply adopting  ecoefficiency innovations could actually worsen environmental stress 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; 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 marketes, greater profits maybe turn into invesment capital that could be easily be reinvested in old-style eco-efficient industries.

innovations可能worsen environmental stress in the future,这是观点;
下面是理由,Such innovations reduce production waste but do not alter the number of products manufactured nor the waste generated from their use and discard; most companies invest in ecoefficiency improvements in order to increase profits and growth.  这是论据一,innovations减少production waste但是不改变产品数量以及产品所产生的废,而且increase profits and growth,可能production 量要上升,waste and discard更多,所以还环境挂了.
第二个论据是morever,既然是morever说明比之前还要严重的问题,可能用old-style的方式,这个情况更严重,
A选项只是说no further improvements这个严重程度相比B选项都要低很多,而这篇文章是要说innovations的坏处的,A选项在这里就仅仅是不痛不痒了,相对来说,b选项更直接和严重

-- by 会员 Rebeldom (2010/3/25 11:13:37)

福亲王

明白了！谢谢啦！

Rebeldom

Peter and Goran see this development as laudable but suggest that simply adopting  ecoefficiency innovations could actually worsen environmental stress 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; 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 marketes, greater profits maybe turn into invesment capital that could be easily be reinvested in old-style eco-efficient industries.

innovations可能worsen environmental stress in the future,这是观点;
下面是理由,Such innovations reduce production waste but do not alter the number of products manufactured nor the waste generated from their use and discard; most companies invest in ecoefficiency improvements in order to increase profits and growth.  这是论据一,innovations减少production waste但是不改变产品数量以及产品所产生的废,而且increase profits and growth,可能production 量要上升,waste and discard更多,所以还环境挂了.
第二个论据是morever,既然是morever说明比之前还要严重的问题,可能用old-style的方式,这个情况更严重,
A选项只是说no further improvements这个严重程度相比B选项都要低很多,而这篇文章是要说innovations的坏处的,A选项在这里就仅仅是不痛不痒了,相对来说,b选项更直接和严重