天山-3-33

sch

我试着分析一下本文的结构和33题......也当是整理一下自己理解的一个过程吧。

原文：

Whereas United States eco- nomic productivity grew at an annual rate of 3 percent from 1945 to 1965, Line it has grown at an annual rate of (5) only about 1 percent since the early 1970’s. What might be preventing higher productivity growth? Clearly, the manufacturing sector of the economy cannot be blamed. Since (10) 1980, productivity improvements in manufacturing have moved the United States from a position of acute decline in manufacturing to one of world prominence. (15) Manufacturing, however, consti- tutes a relatively small proportion of the economy. In 1992, goods- producing businesses employed only 19.1 percent of American (20) workers, whereas service-producing businesses employed 70 percent. Although the service sector has grown since the late 1970’s, its productivity growth has declined. (25) Several explanations have been offered for this decline and for the discrepancy in productivity growth between the manufacturing and service sectors. One is that tra- (30) ditional measures fail to reflect service-sector productivity growth because
     it has been concentrated

in improved quality of services. Yet traditional measures of manu- (35) facturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the undermeasurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate. Others argue (40) that since the 1970’s, manufacturing workers, faced with strong foreign competition, have learned to work more efficiently in order to keep their jobs in the United States, but serviceworkers, who are typically under less global competitive pressure, have not. However, the pressure on manufacturing workers in the United States to work more efficiently has (50) generally been overstated, often for political reasons. In fact, while some manufacturing jobs have been lost due to foreign competition, many more have been lost simply because (55) of slow growth in demand for manu- factured goods. Yet another explanation blames the federal budget deficit: if it were lower, interest rates would be lower (60) too, thereby increasing investment in the development of new technol- ogies, which would spur productivity growth in the service sector. There is, however, no dearth of techno- (65) logical resources; rather, managers in the service sector fail to take advantage of widely available skills and machines. High productivity growth levels attained by leading- (70) edge service companies indicate that service-sector managers who wisely implement available technology and choose skillful workers can significantly improve (75) their companies’ productivity. The culprits for service-sector productivity stagnation are the forces—such as corporate takeovers and unnecessary (80) governmental regulation—that distract managers from the task of making optimal use of available resources.

本文结构:

首先blahblah引出奇怪现象，然后说了3个解释，可以解释生产率的衰退，并且可以解释制造业和服务行业生产率增长的差异（增长不一致的原因）。（然后又一一反驳，最后提出第四个解释）

解释1，传统衡量生产率的标准，无法正确反映服务行业的生产率增长，因为it更关注服务质量的提高。

（. One is that traditional measures fail to reflect service-sector productivity growth because
    it has been concentrated in improved quality of services.我认为这里 it指代service-sector productivity growth）

然后作者又反驳：然而用传统衡量标准，就算考虑到质量的因素，仍旧能看到制造业生产率的大幅增长，而服务业在此标准下以就是增长停滞。

（traditional measures of manufacturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the under measurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate.这里有个对我来说是个难句的表达：用传统上的，对制造业生产率的衡量标准，就算考虑进质量因素，还是会显示出制造业生产率的大幅增长，而服务业增长停滞）（用让步关系，反驳解释1）

 解释2，制造业因为面对国际竞争而服务业不会，所以制造业会更努力，而服务业不用努力（所以显示出discrepancy来了）。

然后作者再次反驳（解释2没有什么难度，过）

解释3，还有人归罪于财政赤字：如果赤字低的话，利率会低，因此投资于科技方面的金钱会增加，而科技的发展会刺激服务业生产率的增长。（注意，作者用的虚拟语气，说了理想的情况，而真实情况是什么呢？作者的潜台词是说：目前赤字高，利率高，投资于科技发展的资金少，所以科技不能发展使得服务业务生产率的减少―――所以产生差异。）

然后作者再次反驳：其实不缺技术资源，而是经理人没能够利用好广泛存在的，可以利用的技能和设备。（言下之意是说：你上面说得逻辑关系，推理链，可能有道理，但是目前首要问题不是刺激技术发展，而是如何利用先有技术，目前现有的技术已经绰绰有余了，就算再发展更好的技术，经理人不能有效的组织利用，也是白搭）

难句：There is, however, no dearth of technological resources; rather, managers in the service sector fail to take advantage of widely available skills and machines.

然而， 不缺科技资源，相反。是服务业的经理人不能有效利用广泛可用的技术和设备。

解释4,其实是外力干扰，比如法律法规，公司合并转移注意力，使得经理无法有效利用现有资源。

Q33:

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the budget-deficit explanation for the iscrepancy mentioned in line 27?

A. Research shows that the federal budget deficit has traditionally caused service

companies to invest less money in research and development of new technologies.

B. New technologies have been shown to play a significant role in companies that

have been able to increase their service productivity.

C. In both the service sector and manufacturing, productivity improvements are

concentrated in gains in quality.

D. The service sector typically requires larger investments in new technology in

order to maintain productivity growth than dose manufacturing.

E. High interest rates tend to slow the growth of manufacturing productivity as much

as they slow the growth of service-sector productivity in the United States.

33其实是问，下面哪个可以削弱“赤字学说”，也就是哪个可以反驳老观点的解释3.

这里比较搞的一点，就是，解释3其实已经被作者削弱过一次了，现在ABCDE中又一个，其实是从另外一个角度再削弱一遍：

我们首先看看老观点的解释3是什么？

Yet another explanation blames the federal budget deficit: if it were lower, interest rates would be lower too, thereby increasing investment in the development of new technologies, which would spur productivity growth in the service sector.

翻译－－－－还有人归罪于财政赤字：如果赤字低的话，利率会低，因此投资于科技方面的金钱会增加，而科技的发展会刺激服务业生产率的增长。（注意，作者用的虚拟语气，说了理想的情况，而真实情况是什么呢？作者的潜台词是说：目前赤字高，利率高，投资于科技发展的资金少，所以科技不能发展使得服务业务生产率的减少―――所以产生差异。）

E：高利率减缓制造业生产率增长，其减缓作用同样程度作用于对服务业生产率增长上。（即：高利率虽然不利于制造业，也同样不利于服务行业）

E是如何削弱的呢？

原文说： 赤字高，利率高，投资少，所以科技不发展，所以服务业生产率减少。E是先承认你的逻辑推理，然后补充一个信息:你说的都对，高利率不利于服务业，但是别忘了，高利率一样会伤害制造业。所以大家一起减少，差异不成立。

（也可以把这题当作一个assumption题：在考虑赤字高不利于服务业的同时，assumption：高赤字对制造业没影响）

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-2-9 11:32:34编辑过]

sch

另外36题D错的。

High productivity growth levels attained by leadingedge service companies indicate that service-sector managers who wisely implement available technology and choose skillful workers can significantly improve  their companies’ productivity。

原文是说，能很好的安排available technology（可用技术，现有技术）和选则 熟练工人，就能大幅提高生产率。

这里就否定了投资技术的必要性。

其实从大局上看，最后一段，作者其实就是在证明：投资技术不是必要地。

投资技术可能有帮助，但是不是必要的。

我觉得D选项其实在考读者对最后一段的整体把握。如果整体把握住了，就不会选D了。而且D里还有heavily，程度上也比原文加深了。

雨安01

楼上的解释很精辟哦！：）谢谢！当然42楼的解释也有异曲同工之妙，把文章的脉络彻底地梳理清楚了。CD上nn真的好多啊！

rebirth115

以下是引用sch在2008-2-9 11:23:00的发言：

我试着分析一下本文的结构和33题......也当是整理一下自己理解的一个过程吧。

原文：

Whereas United States eco- nomic productivity grew at an annual rate of 3 percent from 1945 to 1965, Line it has grown at an annual rate of (5) only about 1 percent since the early 1970’s. What might be preventing higher productivity growth? Clearly, the manufacturing sector of the economy cannot be blamed. Since (10) 1980, productivity improvements in manufacturing have moved the United States from a position of acute decline in manufacturing to one of world prominence. (15) Manufacturing, however, consti- tutes a relatively small proportion of the economy. In 1992, goods- producing businesses employed only 19.1 percent of American (20) workers, whereas service-producing businesses employed 70 percent. Although the service sector has grown since the late 1970’s, its productivity growth has declined. (25) Several explanations have been offered for this decline and for the discrepancy in productivity growth between the manufacturing and service sectors. One is that tra- (30) ditional measures fail to reflect service-sector productivity growth because
     it has been concentrated

in improved quality of services. Yet traditional measures of manu- (35) facturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the undermeasurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate. Others argue (40) that since the 1970’s, manufacturing workers, faced with strong foreign competition, have learned to work more efficiently in order to keep their jobs in the United States, but serviceworkers, who are typically under less global competitive pressure, have not. However, the pressure on manufacturing workers in the United States to work more efficiently has (50) generally been overstated, often for political reasons. In fact, while some manufacturing jobs have been lost due to foreign competition, many more have been lost simply because (55) of slow growth in demand for manu- factured goods. Yet another explanation blames the federal budget deficit: if it were lower, interest rates would be lower (60) too, thereby increasing investment in the development of new technol- ogies, which would spur productivity growth in the service sector. There is, however, no dearth of techno- (65) logical resources; rather, managers in the service sector fail to take advantage of widely available skills and machines. High productivity growth levels attained by leading- (70) edge service companies indicate that service-sector managers who wisely implement available technology and choose skillful workers can significantly improve (75) their companies’ productivity. The culprits for service-sector productivity stagnation are the forces—such as corporate takeovers and unnecessary (80) governmental regulation—that distract managers from the task of making optimal use of available resources.

本文结构:

首先blahblah引出奇怪现象，然后说了3个解释，可以解释生产率的衰退，并且可以解释制造业和服务行业生产率增长的差异（增长不一致的原因）。（然后又一一反驳，最后提出第四个解释）

解释1，传统衡量生产率的标准，无法正确反映服务行业的生产率增长，因为it更关注服务质量的提高。

（. One is that traditional measures fail to reflect service-sector productivity growth because
    it has been concentrated in improved quality of services.我认为这里 it指代service-sector productivity growth）

然后作者又反驳：然而用传统衡量标准，就算考虑到质量的因素，仍旧能看到制造业生产率的大幅增长，而服务业在此标准下以就是增长停滞。

（traditional measures of manufacturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the under measurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate.这里有个对我来说是个难句的表达：用传统上的，对制造业生产率的衡量标准，就算考虑进质量因素，还是会显示出制造业生产率的大幅增长，而服务业增长停滞）（用让步关系，反驳解释1）

 解释2，制造业因为面对国际竞争而服务业不会，所以制造业会更努力，而服务业不用努力（所以显示出discrepancy来了）。

然后作者再次反驳（解释2没有什么难度，过）

解释3，还有人归罪于财政赤字：如果赤字低的话，利率会低，因此投资于科技方面的金钱会增加，而科技的发展会刺激服务业生产率的增长。（注意，作者用的虚拟语气，说了理想的情况，而真实情况是什么呢？作者的潜台词是说：目前赤字高，利率高，投资于科技发展的资金少，所以科技不能发展使得服务业务生产率的减少―――所以产生差异。）

然后作者再次反驳：其实不缺技术资源，而是经理人没能够利用好广泛存在的，可以利用的技能和设备。（言下之意是说：你上面说得逻辑关系，推理链，可能有道理，但是目前首要问题不是刺激技术发展，而是如何利用先有技术，目前现有的技术已经绰绰有余了，就算再发展更好的技术，经理人不能有效的组织利用，也是白搭）

难句：There is, however, no dearth of technological resources; rather, managers in the service sector fail to take advantage of widely available skills and machines.

然而， 不缺科技资源，相反。是服务业的经理人不能有效利用广泛可用的技术和设备。

解释4,其实是外力干扰，比如法律法规，公司合并转移注意力，使得经理无法有效利用现有资源。

Q33:

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the budget-deficit explanation for the iscrepancy mentioned in line 27?

A. Research shows that the federal budget deficit has traditionally caused service

companies to invest less money in research and development of new technologies.

B. New technologies have been shown to play a significant role in companies that

have been able to increase their service productivity.

C. In both the service sector and manufacturing, productivity improvements are

concentrated in gains in quality.

D. The service sector typically requires larger investments in new technology in

order to maintain productivity growth than dose manufacturing.

E. High interest rates tend to slow the growth of manufacturing productivity as much

as they slow the growth of service-sector productivity in the United States.

33其实是问，下面哪个可以削弱“赤字学说”，也就是哪个可以反驳老观点的解释3.

这里比较搞的一点，就是，解释3其实已经被作者削弱过一次了，现在ABCDE中又一个，其实是从另外一个角度再削弱一遍：

我们首先看看老观点的解释3是什么？

Yet another explanation blames the federal budget deficit: if it were lower, interest rates would be lower too, thereby increasing investment in the development of new technologies, which would spur productivity growth in the service sector.

翻译－－－－还有人归罪于财政赤字：如果赤字低的话，利率会低，因此投资于科技方面的金钱会增加，而科技的发展会刺激服务业生产率的增长。（注意，作者用的虚拟语气，说了理想的情况，而真实情况是什么呢？作者的潜台词是说：目前赤字高，利率高，投资于科技发展的资金少，所以科技不能发展使得服务业务生产率的减少―――所以产生差异。）

E：高利率减缓制造业生产率增长，其减缓作用同样程度作用于对服务业生产率增长上。（即：高利率虽然不利于制造业，也同样不利于服务行业）

E是如何削弱的呢？

原文说： 赤字高，利率高，投资少，所以科技不发展，所以服务业生产率减少。E是先承认你的逻辑推理，然后补充一个信息:你说的都对，高利率不利于服务业，但是别忘了，高利率一样会伤害制造业。所以大家一起减少，差异不成立。

（也可以把这题当作一个assumption题：在考虑赤字高不利于服务业的同时，assumption：高赤字对制造业没影响）

赞同

非常好贴

wiseecho

以下是引用华籍美人在2005-6-11 21:25:00的发言：

33题，我觉得答案应该是C!原文没有提到interest rate会对manufacturing productivity的影响不代表不会产生影响阿！

而C说productivity improvements are concentrated in gains in quality. 原文说traditional measurements fail to reflect the service-sector productivity 是因为service-sector has been concentrated in improved quality of services.

C不正好否定了这种观点，说manufacturing sector也是focus on quality么？

因为后面第二段里写， interest rate 降低了， 所以钱都投到technoledge 去了， production提高很快。

而E 说利率提高对大家都不好，就是WEAKEN 了。 所以是E

请指教

kai321

這是我第一次在這純回應，而不是問問題......

但sch牛人時再講解得太好了！

不得不頂阿！

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-5-28 20:17:35编辑过]

wnlovess

真是好帖子

vsuperman

怎么没人问34、35啊 我33、36都做对了。奇怪了

T-3-Q35

It can be inferred from the passage that which of the following was true of the United States manufacturing sector in the years immediately
            prior to 1980?

A.      It was performing relatively poorly.

B.       It was in a position of world prominence.

C.      It was increasing its productivity at an annual rate of 3 percent.

D.      It was increasing its productivity at an annual rate of 1 percent.

E     Its level of productivity wa

immediatelhy那就是指1980年附近了，岂不是应该选b选项。望nn们解答

T-3-Q34

The passage states which of the following about the effect of foreign competition on the American manufacturing sector since the 1970’s?

A.      It has often been exaggerated.

B.       It has not been a direct cause of job loss.

C.      It has in large part been responsible for the subsequent slowing of productivity growth.

D.      It has slowed growth in the demand for manufactured goods in the United States.

It has been responsible for the majority of American jobs lost in manufactur

问b选项有何错误？

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-7-9 17:59:13编辑过]

snowlemon

sch说得太好了。
我没有做对的原因就是没有看懂原文是怎么解释了不同。这个高赤字对制造业的影响不变的假设非常重要，要不然就说不通了。
而e其实就是说赤字对服务业和制造业的影响是相同的，就weaken了

melodymelod

以下是引用snowlemon在2008-11-28 15:43:00的发言：
sch说得太好了。
我没有做对的原因就是没有看懂原文是怎么解释了不同。这个高赤字对制造业的影响不变的假设非常重要，要不然就说不通了。
而e其实就是说赤字对服务业和制造业的影响是相同的，就weaken了

  赞同。当时做题是就是忽略了原文的这个影响是对于服务业和制造业都相同的