请大家帮帮我！

jhiiool

在总结OG的文章，很明显，我做经济类的文章特别糟糕，读一遍后，对文章的整体意思把握不好，比如说在头脑中反映不出来每段的大意，觉得文中各个事物的关系理不顺，大家帮我想想对策把？谢谢

jhiiool

我现在在看og的RC, 感觉很痛苦，我做经济类的文章错误率很高，一遍读下来，头脑中根本无法形成对各段大意的逻辑图(mumu's), 感觉文章中提到的各种事物的关系理不清。比如OG的第39篇 The modernmultinational corporation(multinational corporation: is described as havingoriginated when the owner-managers of nineteenth-century British firms carryingon international trade were replaced by teams of salaried managers organizedinto hierarchies. Increases in the volume of transactions in such firms arecommonly believed to have necessitated this structural change.Nineteenth-century inventions like the steamship and the telegraph, byfacilitating coordination of managerial activities, are described as keyfactors. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century chartered trading companies,despite the international scope of their activities, are usually consideredirrelevant to this discussion: the volume of their transactions is assumed tohave been too low and the communications and transport of their day tooprimitive to make comparisons with modern multinationals interesting.多国（跨国）公司)

In reality,however, early trading companies successfully purchased and outfitted ships,built and operated offices and warehouses, manufactured trade goods for useabroad, maintained trading posts and production facilities overseas, procuredgoods for import, and sold those goods both at home and in other countries. Thelarge volume of transactions associated with these activities seems to havenecessitated hierarchical management structures well before the advent of moderncommunications and transportation. For example, in the Hudson’s Bay Company,each far-flung (far-flung:adj. trading outpost was managed by a salaried agent, who carried outthe trade with the Native Americans, managed day-to-day operations, and oversawthe post’s workers and servants. One chief agent, answerable to the Court ofDirectors (court ofdirectors: in London through the correspondence committee, was appointed withcontrol over all of the agents on the bay.遥远的)董事会)

The early tradingcompanies did differ strikingly from modern multinationals in many respects. Theydepended heavily on the national governments of their home countries and thuscharacteristically acted abroad to promote national interests. Their topmanagers were typically owners with a substantial minority share (minority share: ,whereas senior managers’ holdings in modern multinationals are usuallyinsignificant. They operated in a pre-industrial world, grafting a system ofcapitalist international trade onto a pre-modern system of artisan and peasantproduction. Despite these differences, however, early trading companiesorganized effectively in remarkably modern ways and merit further study asanalogues of more modern structures.少数股份)

241. Theauthor’s main point is that

(A) modernmultinationals originated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with theestablishment of chartered trading companies

(B) the successof early chartered trading companies, like that of modern multinationals,depended primarily on their ability to carry out complex operations

(C) earlychartered trading companies should be more seriously considered by scholarsstudying the origins of modern multinationals

(D) scholarsare quite mistaken concerning the origins of modern multinationals（C）

(E) themanagement structures of early chartered trading companies are fundamentallythe same as those of modern multinationals

比如这片文章我就很难做出木木那样的逻辑简图，其结果就是241主题题答不对。 在读了几遍后，我才理顺第一段的逻辑关系： transactions+inventions (ship,telegraph)==>structural change/hierarchy,而这种hierarchy是成为跨国公司所必须的。 而且再第二遍我才弄清楚第一段中的 charted trading company 就是第二段的 early trading company. 大家可以帮我分析一下该文的思路好吗？还有我应该怎样解决我这类问题呢？

himba

The modern multinational corporation is described as having originated when the owner-managers of nineteenth-century British firms carrying on international trade were replaced by teams of salaried managers organized into hierarchies. Increases in the volume of transactions in such firms are commonly believed to have necessitated this structural change. Nineteenth-century inventions like the steamship and the telegraph, by facilitating coordination of managerial activities, are described as key factors. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century chartered trading companies, despite the international scope of their activities, are usually considered irrelevant to this discussion: the volume of their transactions is assumed to have been too low and the communications and transport of their day too primitive to make comparisons with modern multinationals interesting.

In reality, however, early trading companies successfully purchased and outfitted ships, built and operated offices and warehouses, manufactured trade goods for use abroad, maintained trading posts and production facilities overseas, procured goods for import, and sold those goods both at home and in other countries. The large volume of transactions associated with these activities seems to have necessitated hierarchical management structures well before the advent of modern communications and transportation. For example, in the Hudson’s Bay Company, each far-flung trading outpost was managed by a salaried agent, who carried out the trade with the Native Americans, managed day-to-day operations, and oversaw the post’s workers and servants. One chief agent, answerable to the Court of Directors in London through the correspondence committee, was appointed with control over all of the agents on the bay.

The early trading companies did differ strikingly from modern multinationals in many respects. They depended heavily on the national governments of their home countries and thus characteristically acted abroad to promote national interests. Their top managers were typically owners with a substantial minority share, whereas senior managers’ holdings in modern multinationals are usually insignificant. They operated in a pre-industrial world, grafting a system of capitalist international trade onto a pre-modern system of artisan and peasant production. Despite these differences, however, early trading companies organized effectively in remarkably modern ways and merit further study as analogues of more modern structures.

The logics are concealed underneath the context, in my point, rather than in individual words. But we can surely find some hints from the wording, by which we can also draw a basic view regarding the author's purpose. In the first paragragh of the article, for example, there're couple of words you can take use of to find the author's preferenc, as bolded above. The author uses passive to describe the common view, rather than more direct and assertive subjective. Sort of opposition to that common view is concealed in this wording and is also traceable. We'd probably observe such opposition in the next paragraghs. Given this expectation, it's much easier to understand the further argument.

And, we can also study the whole article piece by piece, or sentence by sentence. This approach is at least helpful for me. Check this out:

The modern multinational corporation is described as having originated when the owner-managers of nineteenth-century British firms carrying on international trade were replaced by teams of salaried managers organized into hierarchies.

---The origination of modern multinational corp.

Increases in the volume of transactions in such firms are commonly believed to have necessitated this structural change.

---What led to the change. (The change is basically refering to the replacement in the first sentence)

Nineteenth-century inventions like the steamship and the telegraph, by facilitating coordination of managerial activities, are described as key factors.

---The key factors related to the change.

Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century chartered trading companies, despite the international scope of their activities, are usually considered irrelevant to this discussion: the volume of their transactions is assumed to have been too low and the communications and transport of their day too primitive to make comparisons with modern multinationals interesting.

---1. The 16th and 17th companies are irrelevant; 2. Why they are irrelevant.

------ The first paragraph as a whole: the traditional view regarding the origination of modern multinational corp and why it sounds true.

I'm not going to analyse the full argument here, but I figure you can absolutely do so if you want to --although a bit time-consuming. Maybe we need one hour or a bit more to study an article, but, I promise it's gonna be helpful!

And, in regards of the "chartered trading companies", the word CHARTERED means authorized by the Kingdom. In early years (16th to 18th century), the commercial business was supposed to be chartered, just like licensed to do something. It's quite common to title a company with the word chartered in early years. Even now, we got the Standard Chartered Bank...

Wish this helps...