GWD5-Q22 to Q25:

      Most pre-1990 literature on busi-

       nesses’ use of information technology

       (IT)—defined as any form of computer-

Line       based information system—focused on

  (5)      spectacular IT successes and reflected

a general optimism concerning IT’s poten-

tial as a resource for creating competitive

advantage.  But toward the end of the

1980’s, some economists spoke of a

 (10)      “productivity paradox”:  despite huge IT

investments, most notably in the service

sectors, productivity stagnated.  In the

retail industry, for example, in which IT

had been widely adopted during the

 (15)      1980’s, productivity (average output per

hour) rose at an average annual rate of

1.1 percent between 1973 and 1989, com-

pared with 2.4 percent in the preceding

25-year period.  Proponents of IT argued

 (20)      that it takes both time and a critical mass

       of investment for IT to yield benefits, and

       some suggested that growth figures for

the 1990’s proved these benefits were

finally being realized.  They also argued

 (25)      that measures of productivity ignore what

would have happened without investments

in IT—productivity gains might have been

even lower.  There were even claims that

IT had improved the performance of the

 (30)      service sector significantly, although mac-

roeconomic measures of productivity did

not reflect the improvement.

      But some observers questioned why,

       if IT had conferred economic value, it did

 (35)      not produce direct competitive advantages

for individual firms.  Resource-based

theory offers an answer, asserting that,

in general, firms gain competitive advan-

tages by accumulating resources that are

 (40)      economically valuable, relatively scarce,

and not easily replicated.  According to

a recent study of retail firms, which con-

firmed that IT has become pervasive

and relatively easy to acquire, IT by

 (45)      itself appeared to have conferred little

advantage.  In fact, though little evidence

of any direct effect was found, the fre-

quent negative correlations between IT

and performance suggested that IT had

 (50)      probably weakened some firms’ compet-

itive positions.  However, firms’ human

resources, in and of themselves, did

explain improved performance, and

some firms gained IT-related advan-

 (55)      tages by merging IT with complementary

resources, particularly human resources.

The findings support the notion, founded

in resource-based theory, that competi-

tive advantages do not arise from easily

 (60)      replicated resources, no matter how

impressive or economically valuable

they may be, but from complex, intan-

gible resources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GWD5-Q22:

The passage is primarily concerned with

1. describing a resource and indicating various methods used to study it
2. presenting a theory and offering an opposing point of view
3. providing an explanation for unexpected findings
4. demonstrating why a particular theory is unfounded
5. resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology

答案说是C,但我觉得E貌似也行啊。说是分析了关于一个technology(IT)的作用的意见不一致。

望大家赐教了~~~

resolve不是分析的意思

resolve在这里意思跟reconcile很进，就是“调和，解决”的意思，所以E错

C providing an explanation for unexpected findings

什么是unexpected findings?