这是怎么回事呢？

stellachen15

GWD5-Q22 to Q25:



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.  roponents 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-Q22:

The passage is primarily concerned with



A. describing a resource and indicating various methods used to study it

B. presenting a theory and offering an opposing point of view

C. providing an explanation for unexpected findings

D. demonstrating why a particular theory is unfounded

E. resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology



我觉得B才是比较好的答案，为什么是C呢？
搜了一下，没有找到合理的解释，请指教

stellachen15

自己顶

stellachen15

求大家帮我看一下

1fineday

我觉得因为文章中出现了两次however(转折)，所以至少B中的an opposing point of view不对，应该是2个。不过感觉这题是挺令人烦躁的，我一开始选了E，想了半天才觉得C比较好。。。

Jackjokes

第一段：主要引出 “productivity paradox”，以及支持IT人的三个观点
第二段：主要 讲Resource-based theory 解释这个paradox

既然是paradox，说明了其unexpected，第二段又主要是解释这个unexpected finding，显然D是对的
其他选项
A。 describe a resouce 无关
B。 an opposingpoint of view 文中并没有出现
C。 why a particular theory is unfounded 文章并不是侧重讲理论 为什么不成立
E。 technology 。文中并没有涉及对一种technology使用存在分歧