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 is primarily concerned with

选项:

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

答案:

C

提问:

请教Tina老师,本题我选的B读的层次是一些literature认为IT可以创造竞争优势,一些人却提出了生产悖论,举了个例子。然后阐述了支持IT的观点,又说了反对者的观点。最后作者给了自己的一个中和观点。由此我选了B,觉得B和文章脉络很贴切,不太理解C选项,认为作者最后的explanation占文章非常少,并且不太认可unexpected findings指的是反对者的言论,希望老师解答,谢谢!

解答:

点赞1
阅读3642
解答: 王文静

提问:

请教Tina老师,本题我选的B读的层次是一些literature认为IT可以创造竞争优势,一些人却提出了生产悖论,举了个例子。然后阐述了支持IT的观点,又说了反对者的观点。最后作者给了自己的一个中和观点。由此我选了B,觉得B和文章脉络很贴切,不太理解C选项,认为作者最后的explanation占文章非常少,并且不太认可unexpected findings指的是反对者的言论,希望老师解答,谢谢!

解答:

点赞1
阅读3643
解答: 王文静老师

提问:

请陆旭老师或Tina老师解答一下:这是一种感觉哪个选项都不好的题。一开始选了C, 可是随后又改成了A (但并不代表我喜欢A),因为觉得原文没有C中说的unexpected findings, 只是后来一些经济学家不认同之前literature对IT的过于乐观的评价。

解答:

点赞1
阅读3580
解答: 陆旭老师

提问:

C和E不会比 当时做题时留下C和E,感觉原文没有讲到finding,主要讲的是IT,而且觉得E和原文讲得挺贴近的,就选了E

解答:

点赞0
阅读3471
解答: sysadmin老师

提问:

这题英老师在讲解时比较BCDE四个较虚的选项时,说除了C,BDE都留下了判断性信息,而C中的修饰词unexpected不进脑子,为什么呢?c是“解释关于unexpected findings”,d是”unfounded theory的原因”,二者差异在何处去判断就进进不进脑子呢?

解答:

点赞0
阅读3495
解答: sysadmin老师

问个问题

点我领取
免费专项课程
在线咨询