题目内容
Well, no gain without pain, they say. But what about pain without gain Everywhere you go in America, you hear tales of corporate revival. What is harder to establish is whether the productivity revolution that businessmen assume they are presiding over is for real.The official statistics are mildly discouraging. They show that, if you put manufacturing and services together, productivity has grown on average by 1.2% since 1987. That is somewhat faster than the average during the previous decade. And since 1991, productivity has increased by 2% a year, which is more than twice the 1978—1987 average. The trouble is that part of the recent acceleration is due to the usual rebound that occurs at this point in a business cycle, and so is not conclusive evidence of a revival in the underlying trend. There is, as Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary, says, a "disjunction" between the mass of business anecdote that points to a leap in productivity and the picture reflected by the statistics.Some of this can be easily explained. New ways of organizing the workplace — all that re- engineering and downsizing — are only one contribution to the overall productivity of an economy, which is driven by many other factors such as joint investment in equipment and machinery, new technology, and investment in education and training. Moreover, most of the changes that companies make are intended to keep them profitable, and this need not always mean increasing productivity: switching to new markets or improving quality can matter just as much.Two other explanations are more speculative. First, some of the business restructuring of recent years may have been ineptly done. Second, even if it was well done, it may have spread much less widely than people suppose.Leonard Schlesinger, a Harvard academic and former chief executive of Au Bon Pain, a rapidly growing chain of bakery cafes, says that much "re-engineering" has been crude. In many cases, he believes, the loss of revenue has been greater than the reductions in cost. His colleague, Michael Beer, says that far too many companies have applied re-engineering in a mechanistic fashion, chopping out costs without giving sufficient thought to long-term profitability. BBDO’s A1 Rosenshine is blunter. He dismisses a lot of the work of re- engineering consultants as mere rubbish — "the worst sort of ambulance-chasing. \ Which of the following statements is NOT mentioned in the passage（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
One billion people in the world are short of water. How can this problem be solved Some suggestions have been to desalinate ocean water or to build enormous water pipelines from areas where water is abundant. (Suggestions such as these prove extremely expensive when they are actually used. ) One possibility that scientists are considering is pulling icebergs from either the North Pole or the South Pole to parts of the world with a water shortage. Although many questions must be answered before such a project could be tried, moving icebergs seems a reasonable possibility in the future.Engineers, mathematicians, and glaciologists from a dozen countries have been considering the iceberg as a future source of water. Saudi Arabia is particularly interested in this project because it has a great water shortage. Scientists estimate that it would take 128 days to transport a large iceberg (about 1/2 square mile) to Saudi Arabia. Yet the iceberg would be completely melted by the 104th day. Therefore, insulation would be essential, but how to insulate the iceberg remains an unsolved problem.The problems in transporting an iceberg are numerous. The first problem is choosing the iceberg to pull. The icebergs that form in the North Pole are quite difficult to handle because of their shape. Only a small portion extends above the water — most of the iceberg is below the surface, which would make it difficult to pull. South Pole icebergs, on the other hand, are flat and float like table tops. Thus they would be much easier to move.How can a 200-million-ton iceberg be moved No ship is strong enough to pull such enormous weight through the water. Perhaps several ships could be used. Attaching ropes to an iceberg this size is also an enormous problem. Engineers think that large nails or long metal rods could be driven into the ice. What would happen if the iceberg splits into several pieces during the pulling Even if an iceberg with very few cracks were chosen, how could it be pulled through stormy waters Furthermore, once the iceberg reached its destination, very few ports would be deep enough to store it.All of these problems must be solved before icebergs can become a reasonable source of water. Yet scientists estimate that it will be possible to transport them in the near future. Each year, enough icebergs form to supply the whole world with fresh water for a full year. In addition, icebergs are free and nonpolluting. As a solution to the world’s water problems, icebergs may be a workable possibility. Which of the following is NOT a problem in transporting icebergs（）
Well, no gain without pain, they say. But what about pain without gain Everywhere you go in America, you hear tales of corporate revival. What is harder to establish is whether the productivity revolution that businessmen assume they are presiding over is for real.The official statistics are mildly discouraging. They show that, if you put manufacturing and services together, productivity has grown on average by 1.2% since 1987. That is somewhat faster than the average during the previous decade. And since 1991, productivity has increased by 2% a year, which is more than twice the 1978—1987 average. The trouble is that part of the recent acceleration is due to the usual rebound that occurs at this point in a business cycle, and so is not conclusive evidence of a revival in the underlying trend. There is, as Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary, says, a "disjunction" between the mass of business anecdote that points to a leap in productivity and the picture reflected by the statistics.Some of this can be easily explained. New ways of organizing the workplace — all that re- engineering and downsizing — are only one contribution to the overall productivity of an economy, which is driven by many other factors such as joint investment in equipment and machinery, new technology, and investment in education and training. Moreover, most of the changes that companies make are intended to keep them profitable, and this need not always mean increasing productivity: switching to new markets or improving quality can matter just as much.Two other explanations are more speculative. First, some of the business restructuring of recent years may have been ineptly done. Second, even if it was well done, it may have spread much less widely than people suppose.Leonard Schlesinger, a Harvard academic and former chief executive of Au Bon Pain, a rapidly growing chain of bakery cafes, says that much "re-engineering" has been crude. In many cases, he believes, the loss of revenue has been greater than the reductions in cost. His colleague, Michael Beer, says that far too many companies have applied re-engineering in a mechanistic fashion, chopping out costs without giving sufficient thought to long-term profitability. BBDO’s A1 Rosenshine is blunter. He dismisses a lot of the work of re- engineering consultants as mere rubbish — "the worst sort of ambulance-chasing. \ According to the author, the American economic situation is（）
It doesn’t take an Einstein to recognize that Albert Einstein’s brain was very different from yours and mine. The gray matter housed inside that shaggy head managed to revolutionize our concepts of time, space, motion — the very foundations of physical reality — not just once but several times during his astonishing career. Yet while there clearly had to be something remarkable about Einstein’s brain, the pathologist who removed it from the great physicist’s skull after his death reported that the organ was, to all appearances, well within the normal range — no bigger or heavier than anyone else’s.But a new analysis of Einstein’s brain by Canadian scientists reveals that it has some distinctive physical characteristics after all. A portion of the brain that governs mathematical ability and spatial reasoning — two key ingredients to the sort of thinking Einstein did best — was significantly larger than average. Its cells may have been more closely connected, which could have allowed them to work together more effectively. While the case is far from proven, it’s a fascinating discovery.What they found was that while the overall size of Einstein’s brain was about average, a region called the inferior parietal lobe (顶骨下叶) was about 15% wider than normal. "visuaspatial (视觉空间) cognition, mathematical thought and imagery of movement, " write Witelson and her co-authors, "are strongly dependent on this region. " And as it happens, Einstein’s impressive insights tended to come from visual images he conjured up intuitively, and were then translated into the language of mathematics ( the theory of special relativity, for example, was triggered by his musing on what it would be like to ride through space on a beam of light).Not only was Einstein’s inferior parietal region unusually bulky, the scientists found, but a feature called the Sylvian fissure (大脑外侧裂) was much smaller than average. Without the groove that normally slices through the tissue, the brain cells were parked close together, permitting more interconnections — which in principle can permit more cross-referencing of information and ideas, leading to great leaps of insight.That’s the idea, anyway. But while it’s quite plausible according to current neurological theory, that doesn’t necessarily make it true. We know Einstein was a genius, and we now know that his brain was physically different from the average. But none of this proves a cause- and-effect relationship. "What you really need, " says Dr. Francine Benes, director of the Structural Neuroscience Laboratory at Meclean Hospital, "is to look at the brains of a number of mathematical geniuses to see if the same abnormalities are present. "Even if they are, it’s possible that the bulked-up brains are result of strenuous mental exercise, not an inherent feature that makes genius possible. Bottom line: we still don’t know whether Einstein was born with an extraordinary mind or whether he earned it, one brilliant idea at a time. The word "housed" (Para.1) probably means "（）".
It doesn’t take an Einstein to recognize that Albert Einstein’s brain was very different from yours and mine. The gray matter housed inside that shaggy head managed to revolutionize our concepts of time, space, motion — the very foundations of physical reality — not just once but several times during his astonishing career. Yet while there clearly had to be something remarkable about Einstein’s brain, the pathologist who removed it from the great physicist’s skull after his death reported that the organ was, to all appearances, well within the normal range — no bigger or heavier than anyone else’s.But a new analysis of Einstein’s brain by Canadian scientists reveals that it has some distinctive physical characteristics after all. A portion of the brain that governs mathematical ability and spatial reasoning — two key ingredients to the sort of thinking Einstein did best — was significantly larger than average. Its cells may have been more closely connected, which could have allowed them to work together more effectively. While the case is far from proven, it’s a fascinating discovery.What they found was that while the overall size of Einstein’s brain was about average, a region called the inferior parietal lobe (顶骨下叶) was about 15% wider than normal. "visuaspatial (视觉空间) cognition, mathematical thought and imagery of movement, " write Witelson and her co-authors, "are strongly dependent on this region. " And as it happens, Einstein’s impressive insights tended to come from visual images he conjured up intuitively, and were then translated into the language of mathematics ( the theory of special relativity, for example, was triggered by his musing on what it would be like to ride through space on a beam of light).Not only was Einstein’s inferior parietal region unusually bulky, the scientists found, but a feature called the Sylvian fissure (大脑外侧裂) was much smaller than average. Without the groove that normally slices through the tissue, the brain cells were parked close together, permitting more interconnections — which in principle can permit more cross-referencing of information and ideas, leading to great leaps of insight.That’s the idea, anyway. But while it’s quite plausible according to current neurological theory, that doesn’t necessarily make it true. We know Einstein was a genius, and we now know that his brain was physically different from the average. But none of this proves a cause- and-effect relationship. "What you really need, " says Dr. Francine Benes, director of the Structural Neuroscience Laboratory at Meclean Hospital, "is to look at the brains of a number of mathematical geniuses to see if the same abnormalities are present. "Even if they are, it’s possible that the bulked-up brains are result of strenuous mental exercise, not an inherent feature that makes genius possible. Bottom line: we still don’t know whether Einstein was born with an extraordinary mind or whether he earned it, one brilliant idea at a time. Which is the physical characteristic of Einstein’s brain（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付