还没有登录哦!

[Reading Comprehension]

试题详情

文章:

    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.

题目:

The passage suggests that proponents of resource-based theory would be likely to explain IT's inability to produce direct competitive advantages for individual firms by pointing out that

选项:

A、IT is not a resource that is difficult to obtain
B、IT is not an economically valuable resource
C、IT is a complex, intangible resource
D、economic progress has resulted from IT only in the service sector
E、changes brought about by IT cannot be detected by macroeconomic measures

答案:

A

提问:

请问张慧雯老师,本题为什么B不对? 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. A相反对应的是relatively scarce,那原题问的是inability就是对原文这几个词取相反的意思,那为什么B不对呢?

解答:

点赞0
阅读3075
解答: 张慧雯

提问:

请问张慧雯老师,本题为什么B不对? 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. A相反对应的是relatively scarce,那原题问的是inability就是对原文这几个词取相反的意思,那为什么B不对呢?

解答:

点赞0
阅读3076
解答: 张慧雯老师

提问:

我定位到了最后一句,选的c,我没觉得我的定位有问题呀。理论支持者,不能提供优势……这些在最后一句里都有。我犯了什么错呢?

解答:

点赞0
阅读4340
解答: 张慧雯老师

提问:

从proponents of IT开始读,读到第二段末尾,不知道怎么选出的A?

解答:

点赞0
阅读4324
解答: 王文静老师

提问:

通过题目定位的是第二节第二句resource-based theory这一句,可是发现A和B都有。选错了,回头看答案。发现文章的最后一句也有提到。这种情况第一次做的时候应该怎么精确定位。

解答:

点赞0
阅读4325
解答: sysadmin老师

提问:

做题时找到文章最后一句,选了C,原文读得不是很明白,麻烦老师解答,谢谢!!

解答:

点赞0
阅读4319
解答: sysadmin老师

问个问题

点我领取
免费专项课程
在线咨询