ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
楼主: tony6
打印 上一主题 下一主题

gwd4-22, 无论如何都是A

[复制链接]
11#
发表于 2004-11-14 12:57:00 | 只看该作者

should be B;

The myth is also

perpetuated by the compensation-

consulting industry, which has its own

(45)      incentives to keep such myths alive.

12#
发表于 2004-11-17 13:07:00 | 只看该作者

没人发表意见吗?

13#
发表于 2005-6-26 23:43:00 | 只看该作者

Q22. A


The author of the passage suggests which of the following about the advice that the consulting firms discussed in the passage customarily give to companies attempting to control costs?


是不是应该更倾向于选择作者的一种态度,作者整篇文章对于这种ADVICE都是不支持的态度。不支持一是源于这种MYTH本身,另一个是源于consulting firm本身里的利益驱使。


The myth is also


perpetuated by the compensation-


consulting industry, which has its own


(45)      incentives to keep such myths alive.


  



  1. It often fails to bring about the intended changes in companies’ compensation systems. 跟作者的态度吻合

  2. It has highly influenced views that predominate in prominent business journals.

  3. It tends to result in decreased labor rates but increased labor costs.

  4. It leads to changes in companies’ compensation practices that are less visible than changes to work processes would be.

  5. It might be different if the consulting firms were less narrowly specialized.     虽然可以从文中找到出处,但是总有种断章取义的感觉。按照E的说法,似乎consulting firms 的业务扩展一下,这种ADVICE就可以达到很理想的状态。其实作者的态度显然不光是consulting firms 的业务情况决定了这个,还有其他诸多的因素。
14#
发表于 2005-6-26 23:59:00 | 只看该作者
同意susan-susan
15#
发表于 2005-7-17 00:14:00 | 只看该作者
其实我觉得

although some of these con-


sulting firms have recently broadened


their practices beyond the area of


compensation, their mainstay con-


(50)      tinues to be advising companies on


changing their compensation prac-

tices.  那已经是一个事实结果,是由consultants为了避免

contrary to the interests 造成的。选E的话不是把结果当原因了吗?


我支持A

16#
发表于 2005-9-2 11:07:00 | 只看该作者

支持选A


http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=25&ID=60417


以上链接中COCOABEAN MM有详细的解释,和偶的思路完全一致。


17#
发表于 2005-9-7 22:58:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用brie在2004-10-17 10:33:00的发言:
I don't agree with A. It does not fail to bring the "intended changes" but the "intened results".

我想你是把这里的“intended changes”理解为作者所反对的labor rate等同于labor cost的观点下的“intended changes”了

其实,按照作者的态度,他所指的“intended changes”应该是不只是cutting wage, 而应该是能实现improved performance的changes, 所以a是对的

18#
发表于 2006-1-7 04:59:00 | 只看该作者

反对A,因为一个system有新的problems,不表明fail.

19#
发表于 2006-8-14 00:31:00 | 只看该作者
A
20#
发表于 2006-8-15 07:26:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用cindy2004在2005-9-7 22:58:00的发言:

我想你是把这里的“intended changes”理解为作者所反对的labor rate等同于labor cost的观点下的“intended changes”了

其实,按照作者的态度,他所指的“intended changes”应该是不只是cutting wage, 而应该是能实现improved performance的changes, 所以a是对的

同意这个思路,实际上问题的核心就在于如何理解compensation systems了,如果只是理解为降低劳动成本labor rates,显然A不对。但从何处能看出作者将compensation systems包括improved performance呢?这是A问题的核心!

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, 2025-4-22 23:56
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