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.

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

Q22:

The passage is primarily concerned with

这题我选的是B，但KEY是C，困惑ING~

请帮忙分析

补充一下我对本题的分析思路：

文章第一段讲的是支持IT能给企业带来优势，第二段则反驳这一观点

我的思路有错吗？谢谢，请指正！

I choose C. Pls refer to the following words:

由此可见第一段是提出一种现象—IT没有如人们想象的体现直接的竞争优势，而第二段着这一现象提出解释—资源论

补充一下我对本题的分析思路：

文章第一段讲的是支持IT能给企业带来优势，第二段则反驳这一观点

我的思路有错吗？谢谢，请指正！

第一段不是支持IT能给企业带来优势，内容恰恰相反！第一段说得很清楚，IT没有带来直接的竞争优势，并且举零售业的例子正明了这一点。IT支持论者其实大部分也是承认这一点的，只不过他们想寻求一种解释来解释这一点。

第二段也没有反驳第一段的内容。第二段也说明IT和其它资源结合如HR成不易被复制的资源后能为企业带来benefits。第二段是对第一段的现象提出解释。第二段首句是TS.