4服务行业和制造业 @(原文)

　　第一段虽然1945年到1965年间美国经济productivity 一直在以每年3%的年增长率增长，但自从1970年以后，它的增长率就下降到了每年只有1%。是什么原因造成的呢?肯定不是manufacturing sector的错。因为自从1980年以后，制造业(manufacturing sector)的增长使美国生产率提高了一大截;有题，问作者暗示了什么，答服务业在1970年之前的表现不好。Behaviour relatively poor.

　　虽然制造业进步很大，但是它毕竟只占美国生产的一小部分。1992年，manufacturing sector之雇佣了美国19.2%的工人，对比之下，服务业(service -producing )雇佣了70%的员工。虽然在1970年后，服务业的生产率也在提高，但提高的速度却在减慢。对于减慢的原因以及服务业和制造业之间的差距，人们做出了几种解释：

　　一个原因是传统的测量方法没有办法真正测出服务业的增长情况。because it has been concentrated in improved quality of services. Yet traditional measures of manufacturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the under measurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate.

　　另一些人argue说，是因为制造业的员工面临更多的国际竞争，这促使他们尽量提高工作效率以确保不会被辞退。而服务业面临的竞争较少，所以他们没有动力。但事实并非如此。服务业员工所面临的压力常常被夸大了。有题，就答这一句。

　　实事上，虽然的确有些制造业的员工因为国外的竞争而失去了工作，但更多的人失去工作是因为产品需求的增长缓慢。

　　然而又有一些人把这个归因于政府的赤字。Budget dicit.如果federal budget dicit 低，利率interest也就低，对于新技术的投资就多。但是服务业并不着急使用新技术，服务业的managers 不能广泛运用新技术。一些公司的情况说明如果managers 能够运用新技术，挑选熟练地员工，那么服务业的生产率一定会上升的。但是企业间不断地兼并以及政府不恰当的调节，使得经理们不能专注于这些正确的策略。

　　有一道主旨题，我选了examine....就是作者重新审视和评价了以往对于美国制造业衰退所进行的那些解释T-3-Q33

　　Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the budget dicit explanation for the discrepancy mentioned in line 27?

　　A.Research shows that the federal budget dicit 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 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

　　考古 ( 原文)

　　这篇是我烤的原文，仔细看

　　T-3-Q33-Q36(This passage is excerpted from material published in 1997)

　　Whereas United States economic productivity grew at an annual rate of 3 percent from 1945 to 1965, it has grown at an annual rate of 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 1980, productivity improvements in manufacturing have moved the United States from a position of acute decline in manufacturing to one of world prominence. Manufacturing, however, constitutes a relatively small proportion of the economy. In 1992, goods-producing businesses employed only 19.1 percent of American workers, whereas service-producing businesses employed 70 percent. Although the service sector has grown since the late 1970’s, its productivity growth has declined. Several explanations have been offered for this declined and for the discrepancy (差距)in productivity growth between the manufacturing and service sectors. One is that traditional measures fail to rlect service-sector productivity growth because it has been concentrated in improved quality of services. Yet traditional measures of manufacturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the under measurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate. Others argue that since the 1970’s, manufacturing workers, faced with strong foreign competition, have learned to work more ficiently in order to keep their jobs in the United States, but service workers, who are typically under less global competitive pressure, have not. However, the pressure on manufacturing workers in the United States to work more ficiently has 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 of slow growth in demand for manufactured goods.

　　Yet another explanation blames the federal budget dicit: if it were lower, interest rate would be lower too, thereby increasing investment in the development of new technologies, which would spur productivity growth in the service sector. There is, however, no dearth of technological resources, rather, managers in the service sector fail to take advantage of widely available skills and machines. High productivity growth levels attained by leading edge service companies indicate that service sector managers who wisely implement available technology and choose skillful workers can significantly improve their companies’ productivity. The culprits for service-sector productivity stagnation are the forces-such as corporate takeovers and unnecessary governmental regulation-that distract managers from the task of making optimal use of available resources.

　　T-3-Q33

　　Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the budget dicit explanation for the discrepancy mentioned in line 27?

　　A.Research shows that the federal budget dicit 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 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

　　T-3-Q34

　　The passage states which of the following about the fect 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.

　　E.It has been responsible for the majority of American jobs lost in manufacturing.

　　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 was higher than afterward.

　　T-3-Q36

　　The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about productivity improvements in United States service companies?

　　A.Such improvements would be largely attributable to ficiencies resulting from corporate takeovers.

　　B.Such improvements would depend more on wise implementation of technology than on managers’ choice of skilled workers.

　　C.Such improvements would be more easily accomplished if there were fewer governmental regulations of the service sector.

　　D.Such improvements would require companies to invest heavily in the development of new technologies.

　　E.Such improvements would be attributable primarily to companies’ facing global competitive pressure.

12月GMAT阅读新题-Business & Economics（三）12月GMAT阅读新题-Business & Economics（三）

　　4服务行业和制造业 @(原文)

　　第一段虽然1945年到1965年间美国经济productivity 一直在以每年3%的年增长率增长，但自从1970年以后，它的增长率就下降到了每年只有1%。是什么原因造成的呢?肯定不是manufacturing sector的错。因为自从1980年以后，制造业(manufacturing sector)的增长使美国生产率提高了一大截;有题，问作者暗示了什么，答服务业在1970年之前的表现不好。Behaviour relatively poor.

　　虽然制造业进步很大，但是它毕竟只占美国生产的一小部分。1992年，manufacturing sector之雇佣了美国19.2%的工人，对比之下，服务业(service -producing )雇佣了70%的员工。虽然在1970年后，服务业的生产率也在提高，但提高的速度却在减慢。对于减慢的原因以及服务业和制造业之间的差距，人们做出了几种解释：

　　一个原因是传统的测量方法没有办法真正测出服务业的增长情况。because it has been concentrated in improved quality of services. Yet traditional measures of manufacturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the under measurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate.

　　另一些人argue说，是因为制造业的员工面临更多的国际竞争，这促使他们尽量提高工作效率以确保不会被辞退。而服务业面临的竞争较少，所以他们没有动力。但事实并非如此。服务业员工所面临的压力常常被夸大了。有题，就答这一句。

　　实事上，虽然的确有些制造业的员工因为国外的竞争而失去了工作，但更多的人失去工作是因为产品需求的增长缓慢。

　　然而又有一些人把这个归因于政府的赤字。Budget dicit.如果federal budget dicit 低，利率interest也就低，对于新技术的投资就多。但是服务业并不着急使用新技术，服务业的managers 不能广泛运用新技术。一些公司的情况说明如果managers 能够运用新技术，挑选熟练地员工，那么服务业的生产率一定会上升的。但是企业间不断地兼并以及政府不恰当的调节，使得经理们不能专注于这些正确的策略。

　　有一道主旨题，我选了examine....就是作者重新审视和评价了以往对于美国制造业衰退所进行的那些解释T-3-Q33

　　Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the budget dicit explanation for the discrepancy mentioned in line 27?

　　A.Research shows that the federal budget dicit 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 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

　　考古 ( 原文)

　　这篇是我烤的原文，仔细看

上12下

共2页

阅读全文

更多出国留学最新动态，敬请关注澳际教育手机端网站，并可拨打咨询热线：400-601-0022