Ecoefficiency (measures
to minimize environmental
impact through the reduction
Line or elimination of waste from
(5) production processes) has
become a goal for companies
worldwide, with many realizing
significant cost savings from
such innovations. Peter Senge
(10) and Goran Carstedt see this
development as laudable but
suggest that simply adopting
ecoefficiency innovations could
actually worsen environmental
(15) stresses in the future. Such
innovations reduce production
waste but do not alter the num-
ber of products manufactured
nor the waste generated from
(20) their use and discard; indeed,
most companies invest in eco-
efficiency improvements in
order to increase profits and
growth. Moreover, there is
(25) no guarantee that increased
economic growth from eco-
efficiency will come in similarly
ecoefficient ways, since in
today’s global markets,
(30) greater profits may be turned
into investment capital that
could easily be reinvested
in old-style eco-inefficient
industries. Even a vastly
(35) more ecoefficient industrial
system could, were it to grow
much larger, generate more
total waste and destroy more
habitat and species than would
(40) a smaller, less ecoefficient
economy. Senge and Carstedt
argue that to preserve the
global environment and sustain
economic growth, businesses
(45) must develop a new systemic
approach that reduces total
material use and total accu-
mulated waste. Focusing
exclusively on ecoefficiency,
(50) which offers a compelling
business case according
to established thinking, may
distract companies from
pursuing radically different
(55) products and business
models.
[url=]T-9-Q9[/url]
The primary purpose of the passage is to
explain why a particular business strategy has been less successful than was once anticipated
propose an alternative to a particular business strategy that has inadvertently caused ecological damage
present a concern about the possible consequences of pursuing a particular business strategy
make a case for applying a particular business strategy on a larger scale than is currently practiced
- suggest several possible outcomes of companies’ failure to understand the economic impact of a particular business strategy
这个题没有人讨论阿，答案C，从Even a vastly...那句退出来，但我觉得A，看了几遍还是觉得A，有没有人来讲讲啊。 06年5月有个帖子问这个题，不过三年过去了，也没有一个人回帖，我倒是跟他的理解一样，希望这次帖子不会再石沉大海阿
引用旧帖子： 答案C.我选A. 对于C还是不能理解.我觉得这个文章的架构: 生态效率通常被认为可以节约成本. 但是PS,GC两个人认为只是采取这个措施会加重环境压力. 从两个方面来解释原因. 1.并不会减少生产所带来的污染.2.Moreover,从ecoefficient中得到的利益不一定会投入到同样的产业中.
我觉得这篇文章主要是先提出观点. 然后论述原因.类似结论解释型. A的explain用的正好. was once anticipated代表老观点(认为生态效率可以节约成本)
C:我觉得重点不在于论述后果啊.而在于解释..
谢谢NN们啊，最近NN都好少出来活动啊…… | 
