Q22 to Q25:

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:

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

P1 : Most pre-1990 literature on businesses’ 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 potential as a resource for creating competitive advantage. 1990以前多数文献著作对IT的前景很乐观，认为能带来竞争优势。

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. 但是在80年代末期，一些经济学家提出了“生产力矛盾”的观点：即使有巨大的IT投资（主要是在服务行业），生产力却停滞不前。

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, compared with 2.4 percent in the preceding 25-year period. 举零售业的例子支持经济学家的观点—即使IT在80年代被广泛的运用，生产力的增长率却低于25年以前。

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. IT. 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 macroeconomic measures of productivity did not reflect the improvement. 支持论者认为需要时间和关键性的投资让IT产生利益，一些人认为90年代的数据增长证明了这些利益最终得以实现。同时他们认为生产力的衡量忽略了没有IT投入可能产生的结果—生产力可能会更低。甚至有人宣称IT已经大大的提高了服务行业的整体表现，尽管生产力的微观经济衡量标准没有反映出这种提高。

P2: But some observers questioned why, if IT had conferred economic value, it did (35) not produce direct competitive advantages for individual firms.

但是很多人质疑如果IT真的有经济上的价值，为什莫它没有为各个公司带来直接的竞争优势。Resource-based theory offers an answer, asserting that, in general, firms gain competitive advantages by accumulating resources that are (40) economically valuable, relatively scarce, and not easily replicated. 资源论就这个问题提供了一个答案—通常公司取得竞争性优势是通过积累有经济价值的，相对稀缺的不易被复制的资源。According to a recent study of retail firms, which confirmed that IT has become pervasive and relatively easy to acquire, IT by (45) itself appeared to have conferred little advantage. 最近对零售业的调查表明IT已经成为一种普遍的相对容易获取的资源，IT本身很少体现竞争优势。In fact, though little evidence of any direct effect was found, the frequent negative correlations between IT and performance suggested that IT had (50) probably weakened some firms’ competitive positions. However, firms’ human resources, in and of themselves, did explain improved performance, and some firms gained IT-related advantages by merging IT with complementary resources, particularly human resources. The findings support the notion, founded in resource-based theory, that competitive advantages do not arise from easily (60) replicated resources, no matter how impressive or economically valuable they may be, but from complex, intangible resources. 但是IT和人力资源结合产生料很好的效果。这一点是支持资源论的观点的—竞争优势不是来自于容易被复制的资源，不管这些资源本身是多末的令人印象深刻和具有经济价值，而是来自于复杂的无形的资源。

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

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.