GWD5-Q24:

jason1985716

Most pre-1990 literature on businesses’ use of information technology (IT)—defined as any form of computer-based information system—focused on spectacular IT successes and reflected a general optimism concerning IT’s potential as a resource for creating competitive advantage.  But toward the end of the 1980’s, some economists spoke of a “productivity paradox”:  despite huge IT investments, most notably in the service sectors, productivity stagnated.  In the retail industry, for example, in which IT had been widely adopted during the 1980’s, productivity (average output per hour) rose at an average annual rate of 1.1 percent between 1973 and 1989, compared with 2.4 percent in the preceding 25-year period.  Proponents of IT argued that it takes both time and a critical mass of investment for IT to yield benefits, and some suggested that growth figures for the 1990’s proved these benefits were finally being realized.  They also argued that measures of productivity ignore what would have happened without investments in IT—productivity gains might have been even lower.  There were even claims that IT had improved the performance of the service sector significantly, although macroeconomic measures of productivity did not reflect the improvement.
          But some observers questioned why, if IT had conferred economic value, it did not produce direct competitive advantages for individual firms.  Resource-based theory offers an answer, asserting that, in general, firms gain competitive advantages by accumulating resources that are economically valuable, relatively scarce, and not easily replicated.  According to a recent study of retail firms, which confirmed that IT has become pervasive and relatively easy to acquire, IT by itself appeared to have conferred little advantage.  In fact, though little evidence of any direct effect was found, the frequent negative correlations between IT and performance suggested that IT had probably weakened some firms’ competitive positions.  However, firms’ human resources, in and of themselves, did explain improved performance, and some firms gained IT-related advantages by merging IT with complementary resources, particularly human resources. The findings support the notion, founded in resource-based theory, that competitive advantages do not arise from easily replicated resources, no matter how impressive or economically valuable they may be, but from complex, intangible resources.

GWD5-Q24:
The author of the passage discusses productivity in the retail industry in the first paragraph primarily in order to
A.    suggest a way in which IT can be used to create a competitive advantage
B.    provide an illustration of the “productivity paradox”
C.    emphasize the practical value of the introduction of IT
D.    cite an industry in which productivity did not stagnate during the 1980’s
E.    counter the argument that IT could potentially create competitive advantage

这道题答案是B，请问E错在哪里呢？

azh826

我也想请教各位高手，E究竟错在哪里呢？

abby666666

顶。
各位NN来回答一下吧~

edwardelric

counter sth 与productivity paradox不同， 本文从来没有绝对的否认 IT could potentially create competitive advantage
第二段第一句But some observers questioned why, if IT had conferred economic value, it did not produce direct competitive advantages for individual firms.  Resource-based theory offers an answer...
还有第一段末尾上面的各种观点都没有涉及到否认
只是分阶段的去表现，或者有不同方式得到最终体现，有探究为什么了等等...
换句话说，只是针对现象举例子，而不是提出观点，举例子
e有点表达不准确，有点极端
有一眼就看到b 的关键词
所以直接就选b了

ecogo

楼上说得好，只是针对现象举例子，而非观点。
回过头来看，author discuss...in order to。显然，这个文章作者的观点是支持IT 有advantage的，所以E和作者的态度相反，是不好的。too extrem