题目内容
Passage 2Since the late 1970’s in the face of a severe loss of market share in dozens of industries, manufacturers in the United States have been trying to improve productivity—and therefore enhance their international competitiveness—through cost-cutting programs. (Cost-cutting here is defined as raising labor output while holding the amount of labor constant.) However, from 1978 through 1982, productivity—the value of goods manufactured divided by the amount of labor input—did not improve; and while the results were better in the business upturn of the three years following, they ran 25 percent lower than productivity improvements during earlier, post-1945 upturns. At the same time, it became clear that the harder manufactures worked to implement cost-cutting, the more they lost their competitive edge.With this paradox in mind, I recently visited 25 companies; it became clear to me that the cost-cutting approach to increasing productivity is fundamentally flawed. Manufacturing regularly observes a "40, 40, 20" rule. Roughly 40 percent of any manufacturing-based competitive advantage derives from long-term changes in manufacturing structure (decisions about the number, size, location, and capacity of facilities) and in approaches to materials. Another 40 percent comes from major changes in equipment and process technology. The final 20 percent rests on implementing conventional cost-cutting. This rule does not imply that cost-cutting should not be tried. The well-known tools of this approach—including simplifying jobs and retraining employees to work smarter, not harder—do produce results. But the tools quickly reach the limits of what they can contribute.Another problem is that the cost-cutting approach hinders innovation and discourages creative people. As Abernathy’s study of automobile manufacturers has shown, an industry can easily become prisoner of its own investments in cost-cutting techniques, reducing its ability to develop new products. And managers under pressure to maximize cost-cutting will resist innovation because they know that more fundamental changes in processes or systems will wreak havoc with the results on which they are measured. Production managers have always seen their job as one of minimizing costs and maximizing output. This dimension of performance has until recently sufficed as a basis of evaluation, but it has created a penny-pinching, mechanistic culture in most factories that has kept away creative managers.Every company I know that has freed itself from the paradox has done so, in part, by developing and implementing a manufacturing strategy. Such a strategy focuses on the manufacturing structure and on equipment and process technology. In one company a manufacturing strategy that allowed different areas of the factory to specialize in different markets replaced the conventional cost-cutting approach; within three years the company regained its competitive advantage. Together with such strategies, successful companies are also encouraging managers to focus on a wider set of objectives besides cutting costs. There is hope for manufacturing, but it dearly rests oil a different way of managing. It can be inferred from the passage that the manufacturers mentioned in paragraph 1 expected that the measures they implemented would （）.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Passage 3It can be argued that much consumer dissatisfaction with marketing strategies arises from an inability to aim advertising at only the likely buyers of a given product. There are three groups of consumers who are affected by the marketing process. First, there is the market segment—people who need the commodity in question. Second, there is the program target—people in the market segment with the "best fit" characteristics for a specific product. Lots of people may need trousers, but only a few qualify as likely buyers of very expensive designer trousers. Finally, there is the program audience-all people who are actually exposed to the marketing program without regard to whether they need or want the product.These three groups are rarely identical. An exception occurs in cases where customers for a particular industrial product may be few and easily identifiable. Such customers, all sharing a particular need, are likely to form a meaningful target, for example, all companies with a particular application of the product in question, such as high-speed fillers of bottles at breweries. In such circumstances, direct selling (marketing that reaches only the program target) is likely to be economically justified, and highly specialized trade media exist to expose members of the program target—and only members of the program target—to the marketing program.Most consumer-goods markets are significantly different. Typically, there are many rather than few potential customers. Each represents a relatively small percentage of potential sales. Rarely do members of a particular market segment group themselves neatly into a meaningful program target. There are substantial differences among consumers with similar demographic characteristics. Even with all the past decade’s advances in information technology, direct selling of consumer goods is rare, and mass marketing—a marketing approach that aims at a wide audience—remains the only economically feasible mode. Unfortunately, there are few media that allow the marketer to direct a marketing program exclusively to the program target. Inevitably, people get exposed to a great deal of marketing for products in which they have no interest and so they become annoyed. "the product in question" in Line 4 Paragraph 2 means （）.
Passage 1Many United States companies have, unfortunately, made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line of work. Since 1980 the United States international Trade Commission (ITC) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign governments. Another 340 charge that foreign companies "dumped" their products in the United States at "less than fair value. " Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they develop an intricate web of marketing, production, and research relationships. The complexity of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company. Suppose a United States-owned company establishes an overseas plant to manufacture a product while its competitor makes the same product in the United States. If the competitor can prove injury from the imports—and that the United States company received a subsidy from a foreign government to build its plant abroad—the United States company’s products will be uncompetitive in the United States, since they would be subject to duties.Perhaps the most brazen ease occurred when the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to de-ice roads. The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate with" United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The "United States" company claiming injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate, while the "Canadian" companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt. The passage is chiefly concerned with （）.
编写WWW网页文件所使用的语言是（）。
Passage 4Choose the best from the following sentences marked A to E to complete the article below.Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market. (16) . A price that is determined by the seller or, for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious. (17) In fact, price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that it requires. Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence, a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of free-market economic theories. (18) Each large firm will thus avoid significant price-cutting, because price-cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.Moreover, those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non-socialist countries other than the United states. These economies employ intentional price-fixin9, usually in an overt fashion. Formal price-fixing by cartel and informal price-fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are common-place. (19) , the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.Socialist industry also works within a framework of controlled prices. In the early 1970’s, the Soviet Union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system (20) ; rather, Soviet firms have been given the power to fix prices. 17（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付