用户名: 密码: 验证码:    注册 | 忘记密码?
首页|听力资源|每日听力|网络电台|在线词典|听力论坛|下载频道|部落家园|在线背单词|双语阅读|在线听写|普特网校
您的位置:主页 > 英语考试 > 考研英语 >

考后深思:剖析考研英语(一)真题阅读Text3

2016-01-07    来源:万学海文    【      托福雅思口语高分过

  【 真题自测】

Text 3
“There is one and only one social responsibility of business” wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist “That is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.” But even if you accept Friedman’s premise and regard corporate social responsibility(CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders’s money, things may not be absolutely clear-act. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.
The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a “signal” that a company’s products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company’s products as an indirect may to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse “halo effect” whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.
 
Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under American’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act(FCPA).It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company’s products as part of their investigations,they could be influenced only by the halo effect.
 
The study found that,among prosecuted firms,those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient penalties. Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firm’s political influence, rather than their CSR stand, that accounted for the leniency: Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.
 
In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company’s record in CSR. “We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern, such as child labour, or increasing corporate giving by about20% result in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials.” says one researcher.
 
Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question at how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when they companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
 
31. The author views Milton Friedman’s statement about CSR with
[A]uncertainty
[B]skepticism
[C]approval
[D]tolerance
32. According to Paragraph 2, CSR helps a company by
[A]guarding it against malpractices
[B]protecting it from consumers
[C]winning trust from consumers.
[D]raising the quality of its products
33. The expression “more lenient”(line 2,Para.4)is closest in meaning to
[A]less controversial
[B]more lasting
[C]more effective
[D]less severe
34. When prosecutors evaluate a case, a company’s CSR record
[A]comes across as reliable evidence
[B]has an impact on their decision
[C]increases the chance of being penalized
[D]constitutes part of the investigation
35. Which of the following is true of CSR according to the last paragraph?
[A] The necessary amount of companies spending on it is unknown
[B] Companies’ financial capacity for it has been overestimated
[C] Its negative effects on businesses are often overlooked
[D]It has brought much benefit to the banking industry
 
参考答案:ACDBA
 
第三篇阅读理解选自2015年6月27日The Economics(《经济学人》)发表的名为“Halo Effect”的文章,其副标题是Do-gooding policies help firms when they get prosecuted(行善策略会使公司在面临诉讼时得到帮助),属于经济类题材的文章。
 
这篇文章五道考题难度不是很大,其中有两道细节,一道推理题,还有一道态度题和一道词义题。每种题型的解题方法都离不开海文老师一直提倡的宏观阅读法。只要抓住了这篇文章的主线,以及作者的态度,那么这五道题也就迎刃而解了。首先,第一段作者通过引用Miltion Friedman的话引出了本文探讨的话题是CSR(企业的社会责任感),并在二句转折之后提出自己的观点,认为Friedman对CSR的界定含糊不清,实际上CSR能够给企业带来金钱价值,特别是面对贪污腐败案件的指控时。由此可以看出作者对CSR持肯定的态度,并且认为能够给公司带来经济价值。第二段则主要介绍了CSR给公司带来价值的三个具体的表现。第三、第四段和第五段以腐败案件的研究为例,明确了CSR的记录使得公司在面临腐败案件指控时能够减轻罚款。最后一段指出该研究虽然有缺陷,没有回答公司到底该为CSR支出多少费用的问题,但是最后一句呼应首段二句,再次深化主题:CSR会使公司在面临诉讼时得到帮助。
 
31题是一个态度题。可以直接定位到首段二句,转折之后作者明确指出了自己的态度。如果人们接受了Friedman对CSR的这一前提,那么实际情况就不会那么明确了。也就是说,作者实际上认为Friedman的观点有不确定性。故正确答案为uncertainty。这道题有明显的解题标志词:But,属于首段转折型的文章,难度不大。
 
32题是一个推理题。这道题考察考生归纳原文细节信息的能力。根据题干定位到第二段第二句,该句指出CSR以三种方式给公司带来价值。再往下细读时,不难发现这三种方式的主体都离不开消费者(consumers, customers),也就是说CSR给企业带来价值主要是通过消费者。因此正确答案为选项D(winning trust from consumers):CSR是通过赢得顾客的信任从而帮助公司获益
 
33题是一个词义题。这道题有一定的难度,解题时除了借助上下文,还需要考生的逆向思维。根据题干定位到第四段第一句。通过该段第二句的描述可以得知CSR和政治影响是对立的两个因素。而第二句冒号后面交代,参与政治活动较多的公司不会受到较低的罚款。这就意味着,反而具有全面的CSR项目的公司受到的罚款比较低。因此,结合选项可以推出第一句话中的more lenient penalties指less severe,即不那么严重的(宽大)的惩罚。因此正确答案为D。其次,结合文章中心也可以推出这道题的答案。首段最后一句指出,CSR可以帮助公司带来金钱的价值(monetary value),特别是公司在面临反腐案件指控时。而这里的金钱价值实际上是指CSR使公司受到的罚款较少。
 
34题是一个细节题。该题难度不大,再度验证了转折的重要性。根据题干中的prosecutors evaluate a case回文定位到第五段第二句。该句指出虽然检察官在评估一个案件时,应该基于其功绩,实际上还是受到了公司CSR记录的影响。故正确答案为选项B。题干中的a company’s CSR record是原文信息的复现,选项中的has an impact是原文be influenced的同义替换,their decision具体指检察官的评估决定。
 
35题依然是一道细节题,难度较低。根据题干回文定位到最后一段。该段首句指出,研究者们承认他们的研究没有解决的问题是:针对CSR各大企业到底该支出多少费用。故正确答案为选项A,其中the necessary amount of companies spending on it(it指代CRS)是原文how much businesses ought to spend on CRS的同义替换,表达的核心都是“公司到底该支出多少费用”;unknown对应原文中的does not answer the question,对这个问题并没有做出回答。


顶一下
(1)
50%
踩一下
(1)
50%
了不起的盖茨比
跟着纪录片学英语
有声读物:公主日记
初学者最好资料
手机上普特 m.putclub.com 手机上普特
[责任编辑:katee]
------分隔线----------------------------
发表评论 查看所有评论
请自觉遵守互联网政策法规,严禁发布色情、暴力、反动的言论。
评价:
表情:
用户名: 密码: 验证码:
  • 推荐文章
  • 资料下载
  • 讲座录音
普特英语手机网站
用手机浏览器输入m.putclub.com进入普特手机网站学习
查看更多手机学习APP>>