ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
楼主: catcenter
打印 上一主题 下一主题

GWD29-11-13

[复制链接]
31#
发表于 2007-10-13 15:21:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用kaijen在2007-9-6 13:45:00的发言:

Q11

According to the passage, during the 1970’s and 1980’s bidding firms differed from the firms for which they bid in that bidding firms

             

  1. tended to be more profitable before a merger than after a merger   

    B.   were more often concerned about the impact of acquisitions on national economies

    C.   were run by managers whose actions were modeled on those of other managers

    D.   anticipated greater economic advantages from prospective mergers

    E.   experienced less of an increase in stock value when a prospective merger was announce

  11题為什麼不是A呀?

我覺得A符合原則一
One study showed, for example, that acquiring firms were on average unable to
maintain acquired frims' pre-merger levels of profitability

有3个study

第一个that acquir-

ing firms were on average unable to

maintain acquired firms’ pre-merger

levels of profitability.是对被合并的公司不利(主持合并公司不能维持被合并公司原来的利润)

第二个

A second study

 (10)      concluded that post-acquisition gains

to most acquiring firms were not ade-

quate to cover the premiums paid

to obtain acquired firms. 是对主持合并公司不利,他们不能把钱赚回来

第三个

A third

demonstrated that, following the

 (15)      announcement of a prospective

merger, the stock of the prospective

acquiring firm tends to increase in

value much less than does that of

the firm for which it bids.  对支持合并公司不利,他们的股票还没有被合并公司的高

所以比较利润的话,两者是比不出来的;而单单比较股票就能比较出来


A third

demonstrated that, following the

 (15)      announcement of a prospective

merger, the stock of the prospective

acquiring firm tends to increase in

value much less than does that of

the firm for which it bids.  对支持合并公司不利,他们的股票还没有被合并公司的高

所以比较利润的话,两者是比不出来的;而单单比较股票就能比较出来


[此贴子已经被作者于2007-10-13 15:24:07编辑过]
32#
发表于 2007-10-18 12:38:00 | 只看该作者
how about Q12? Why C is not correct? Why E is better?
33#
发表于 2007-10-22 16:06:00 | 只看该作者

13,我选d

34#
发表于 2007-11-2 00:11:00 | 只看该作者
It seems that factors[DS1] 
    hav-
            

ing little to do with corporate economic

       interests explain acquisitions.

我第一次做的时候也是这么想的,但是仔细分析语法,会发现

having little to do with corporate economic是定语,修饰factors,explain 是谓语

也就是说这些因素能够解释收购行为,但他们跟公司本身的经济因素是无关的。

35#
发表于 2007-11-6 17:49:00 | 只看该作者

34楼理解正确,这个选B没错:)

36#
发表于 2008-2-29 22:16:00 | 只看该作者
up
37#
发表于 2008-5-1 22:52:00 | 只看该作者
这篇也是读起来不难,选项不太好比。
38#
发表于 2008-8-2 23:42:00 | 只看该作者
up
39#
发表于 2008-8-18 10:02:00 | 只看该作者
up
40#
发表于 2008-9-8 14:02:00 | 只看该作者
up
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-4-26 17:15
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部