Japanese firms have achieved the highest levels of manufacturing efficiency in the world automobile industry. Some observers of Japan have assumed that Japanese firms use the same manufacturing equipment and techniques as United States firms but have benefited from the unique characteristics of Japanese employees and the Japanese culture. However, if this were true, then one would expect Japanese auto plants in the United States to perform no better than factories run by United States companies. This is not the case; Japanese-run automobile plants located in the United States and staffed by local workers have demonstrated higher levels of productivity when compared with factories owned by United States companies.

Other observers link high Japanese productivity to higher levels of capital investment per worker. But a historical perspective leads to a different conclusion. When the two top Japanese automobile makers matched and then doubled United States productivity levels in the mid-sixties, capital investment per employee was comparable to that of United States firms. Furthermore, by the late seventies, the amount of fixed assets required to produce one vehicle was roughly equivalent in Japan and in the United States.

Since capital investment was not higher in Japan, it had to be other factors that led to higher productivity. A more fruitful explanation may lie with Japanese production techniques. Japanese automobile producers did not simply implement conventional processes more effectively: they made critical changes in United States procedures. For instance, the mass-production philosophy of United States automakers encouraged the production of huge lots of cars in order to utilize fully expensive, component-specific equipment and to occupy fully workers who have been trained to execute one operation efficiently. Japanese automakers chose to make small-lot production feasible by introducing several departures from United States practices, including the use of flexible equipment that could be altered easily to do several different production tasks and the training of workers in multiple jobs. Automakers could schedule the production of different components or models on single machines, thereby eliminating the need to store the buffer stocks of extra components that result when specialized equipment and workers are kept constantly active.

1. The primary purpose of the passage is to>>

(A) present the major steps of a process>>

(B) clarify an ambiguity>>

(C) chronicle a dispute>>

(D) correct misconceptions（D）>>

(E) defend an accepted approach

B和D很容易混，全文在说1，2不成立并解释、分析原因，然后提出3是对的，那么不可以认为是clarify了吗？当然，我也不否认D的正确。谢谢！

我当时选的时候也是犹豫不定，但是 因为 misconceptS 是复数，所以我选了D。 不过那位NN 还能说说区别方法？

我想问问“When the two top Japanese automobile makers matched and then doubled United States productivity levels in the mid-sixties那位可以帮翻译下这句话。因为不懂这句话，3题推不出来

Which of the following statements concerning the productivity levels of automakers can be inferred from the passage?

(A) Prior to the 1960’s, the productivity levels of the top Japanese automakers were exceeded by those of United States automakers.

(B) The culture of a country has a large effect on the productivity levels of its automakers.

(C) During the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, productivity levels were comparable in Japan and the United States.

(D) The greater the number of cars that are produced in a single lot, the higher a plant’s productivity level.（A）

(E) The amount of capital investment made by automobile manufacturers in their factories determines the level of productivity.

愚见：首先是动词，作者到底是clarify还是correct。我觉得clarify是澄清一些实事，correct是纠正一些看法，所以这篇是correct,因为它开篇就否定了两个观点，然后解释为什么不对，应该怎样解释。

其次是名词，不考虑单复数，ambiguity就是confusion,是指对某事物的性质……有迷惑,misconception是指观点根本就错了。本文作者就是认为老观点错了啊。