注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

佳中Blog

英语学习园地

 
 
 

日志

 
 

【阅读理解】 美国公司管理危机结束了吗?  

2011-08-03 12:02:22|  分类: 阅读理解 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |
 【阅读理解】 美国公司管理危机结束了吗? - 佳中 - 佳中Blog阅读理解】 
  美国公司管理危机结束了吗? 

                                               命题: 佳中




       It has been a wrecked few weeks for America’s celebrity bosses. AIG’s Maurice Greenberg has 
been ousted from the firm through which he dominated global insurance for decades. At Morgan 
Stanley, a mutiny is forcing Philip Purcell, a boss used to getting his own way, into an increasingly 
desperate campaign to save his skin. At Boeing, Harry Stonecipher was called out of retirement to 
lead the scandal-hit firm and raise ethical standards, only to commit a lapse of his own, being sacked 
for sending e-mails to lover who was also an employee. The fate of Bernie Ebbers is much grimmer. 
The once high-profile boss of WorldCom could well spend the rest of his life behind bars following his 
conviction last month on fraud charges.
      In different ways, each of these examples appears to points to the same welcome conclusion: that 
the imbalance in corporate power of the late 1990s, when many bosses were allowed to behave like 
absolute monarchs, has been corrected. Alas, appearances can be deceptive. While each of these 
recent tales of chief-executive woe is a sign of progress, none provides much evidence that the crisis 
in American corporate governance is yet over. In fact, each of these cases is an example of failed, not 
successful, governance.
       At the very least, the board of Morgan Stanley was far too slow to address its boss inadequacies. 
The record of the Boeing board in picking chiefs prone to ethical lapses is too long to be dismissed as 
mere bad luck. The fall of Greenberg and Ebbers highlights the growing role of government — and, in 
particular, of criminal prosecutors — a development that is, at best, a mixed blessing. For example, the 
Sarbanes-Oxley act, passed in haste following the Enron and WorldCom scandals, is imposing heavy 
costs on American companies; whether these are exceeded by any benefits is the subject of fierce 
debate and may not be known for years.
       Eliot Spitzer, New York’s attorney-general, is the leading advocate and practitioner of an energetic 
“law enforcement” approach. He may be right that the recent burst of punitive actions has been good for 
the economy, even if some of his own decisions have been open to question. Where he is undoubtedly 
right is in arguing that corporate America has done a lamentable job of governing itself. As he says in an 
article in the Wall Street Journal this week: “The honor code among CEOs didn’t work. Board oversight 
didn’t work. Self-regulation was a complete failure.” AIG’s board, for example, did nothing about Mr. 
Greenberg’s use of murky accounting until Mr. Spitzer threatened a criminal prosecution that might have 
destroyed the firm.   

                                                                                                                (438 words)

                                  

 1. In the first paragraph, the author

      [A] compares the performances of some celebrity bosses.

      [B] introduces some prestigious persons in American firms.

      [C] describes the plight of some reputed firm leaders.

      [D] exposes some dark aspects of American companies.

 2. From the second paragraph we learn that

      [A] America’s bosses no longer possess absolute corporate power.

      [B] chief-executive woe has ended absolute monarchs in management.

      [C] corporate management crisis has not been substantially improved.

      [D] many American celebrity bosses prove to be deceptive.

 3. What is said about the government role of criminal prosecutors in the text?

      [A] It remains unknown to companies.

      [B] It produces both merits and demerits.

      [C] It imposes heavy costs on society.

      [D] It is subject to fierce debate.

 4. What Eliot Spitzer says in the Wall Street Journal shows that

      [A] governing corporate America is a lamentable job.

      [B] law enforcement approach should be open to public discussion.

      [C] problems of American corporate management can hardly be improved.

      [D] punitive actions are needed to ensure the health of corporate economy.

 5. The text is mainly about

      [A] the scandals of America’s celebrity bosses.

      [B] the crisis in American corporate governance.

      [C] the role of government in criminal prosecution.

      [D] law enforcement approach to corporate management.

             

 

篇章分析

    第1段: 列举4位著名公司总裁的例子。

                  理解要点: 举例目的是什么?

    第2段:

                   理解要点:公司权力失调得益纠正     welcome

                   是进步的表现,但不是危机的结束     deceptive

 

    第3段: 对公司总裁犯罪犯罪起诉的看法: a mixed blessing

    第4段: Spitzer 的观点:  需要惩罚性措施   law engorcement

                

 

答案解析

 1.【答案】  C

     【考点】  这是一道细节题,针对第一段命题。

     【解析】  文章第一段作者列举四位著名公司的总裁因劣迹、丑闻、犯罪而被逐出公司。通常,

       文章开头列举事例都是 为了证明文章的主题。你读完这个句子就知道作者举例的目的了。

       …….. none provides much evidence that the crisis in American corportate governance is yet

       over. In fact, each of these cases is an example of failed, not successful, governance. 本文

       论述的中心是美国公司管理危机。上述例子说明因公司总裁出问题,公司的管理陷入困境。

       因此判断C项是正确答案。

 

 2. 【答案】  C

      【考点】  这是一道细节题,也是作者观点题,针对第二段命题。

      【解析】  在九十年代末,许多公司老板为所欲为,实行君主式管理。一些著名公司总裁出事

       后,舆论普遍认为这种公 司权力失调状况得到纠正。对此,作者进行了评论。他认为表面的

       东西是有欺骗性的(appearance can be eceptive)。虽然最近公司总裁丑剧的事例是进步的

       表现,但没有证据表明美国公司管理危机已经结束。事实上,所有这些事例都说明公司管理

       是失败的而不是成功的。由此可以推断作者认为美国公司管理危机没有实质性的改善,C项是

       本题的正确答案。

 

 3. 【答案】  B

       【考点】  这是一道作者观点题,针对第三段命题。

       【解析】  第三段开头说对有些公司总裁犯罪要进行犯罪起诉(…… highlights the growing 

         role of government — and in particular, of criminal prosecutrors)。对此作者的看法是:这

         是一种发展趋向,但往好的方面说,至多是 a  mixed blessing。关键是对“a mix blessing”

         的理解。 “a mixed blessing”的基本意思是“喜忧参半的事”、“好坏难说的事”。 知道“a mixed

         blessing”意思的同学肯定做对这道题啰,不知道“a mixed blessing”意思的同学,往下看到

        whether these are excessed by any benefits is the subject of fierce debate就应该明白了。 犯

        罪起诉是否有好处仍有争议,也就是说,其作用难料,B项是本题的正确答案。

 

 4. 【答案】  D

      【考点】  这是一道例证观点题,针对第四段命题。

      【解析】  先来看看Spitzer对华尔街杂志的讲话的意思:“荣誉准则在首席执行官中行不通,董

        事会监督不起作用,自律又是彻底的失败。”联系上文可知,Spitzer是纽约总检察长,他积极

        主张  “law enforcement”。作者在评论时说“他也许是对的,因为惩罚诉讼有利于经济发展。可

        见,Spitzer对华尔街杂志的讲话的言下之意是这也行不通惩,那 也不起作用,只好采取法律

         诉讼。 D项是本题的正确答案。

 

 4. 【答案】  B

      【考点】  这是一道主旨题,针对全文命题。

      【解析】  通过上述四题的解析,可以清楚知道全文是围绕“美国公司管理危机”展开论述。B

        项是本题的答案。其他三项“美国名人老丑闻”、“政府在犯罪起诉中的作用”、“对公司管理的

        法律惩处的主张”都仅是文中涉及的内容,不是主题。

 

        【阅读理解】 美国公司管理危机结束了吗? - 佳中 - 佳中Blog

 
  评论这张
 
阅读(288)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017