以下是引用liu977在2005-8-26 21:43:00的发言:天山9-Q9—Q12
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.
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
The passage implies that which of the following is a possible consequence of a company’s adoption of innovations that increase its ecoefficiency?
- Company profits resulting from such innovations may be reinvested in that company with no guarantee that the company will continue to make further improvements in ecoefficiency.
- 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.
- A company that fails to realize significant cost savings from such innovations may have little incentive to continue to minimize the environmental impact of its production processes.
- A company that comes to depend on such innovations to increase its profits and growth may be vulnerable in the global market to competition from old-style ecoinefficient industries.
- A company that meets its ecoefficiency goals is unlikely to invest its increased profits in the development of new and innovative ecoefficiency measures.
这篇文章以前有过讨论,但还存有一些疑问,所以翻出来再讨论:1.请帮忙确认一下第9题的答案,我选A 2.第12题,以前讨论的结果是B,但仔细看了文中红字部分,并没有明确说ecoefficiency的使用可以manufacture a great number of products,只说not alter the number....这么看B是不是还值得商榷,而A则没有什么大问题,WangyuNN曾指出A中的further和原文的similar不同,但我认为恰恰是原文改写,原文说ecoefficiency带来的经济增长并未再度用在同样的ecoefficiency上(投资到非ecoefficiency上了),A的意思是ecoefficiency带来的经济增长并未进一步发展ecoefficiency,不也正是这个意思吗?
Open to discuss。。。