12 美国工业和服务业
Whereas United States economic productivity grew at an annual rate of 3 percent from 1945 to 1965, it has grown at an annual rate of only about 1 percent since the early 1970’s. What might be preventing higher productivity growth? Clearly, the manufacturing sector of the economy cannot be blamed. Since 1980, productivity improvements in manufacturing have moved the United States from a position of acute decline in manufacturing to one of world prominence. Manufacturing, however, constitutes a relatively small proportion of the economy. In 1992, goods-producing businesses employed only 19.1 percent of American workers, whereas service-producing businesses employed 70 percent. Although the service sector has grown since the late 1970’s, its productivity growth has declined. Several explanations have been offered for this declined and for the discrepancy in productivity growth between the manufacturing and service sectors. One is that traditional measures fail to reflect service-sector productivity growth because it has been concentrated in improved quality of services. Yet traditional measures of manufacturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the under measurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate. Others argue that since the 1970’s, manufacturing workers, faced with strong foreign competition, have learned to work more efficiently in order to keep their jobs in the United States, but service workers, who are typically under less global competitive pressure, have not. However, the pressure on manufacturing workers in the United States to work more efficiently has generally been overstated, often for political reasons. In fact, while some manufacturing jobs have been lost due to foreign competition, many more have been lost simply because of slow growth in demand for manufactured goods.
Yet another explanation blames the federal budget deficit: if it were lower, interest rate would be lower too, thereby increasing investment in the development of new technologies, which would spur productivity growth in the service sector. There is, however, no dearth of technological resources, rather, managers in the service sector fail to take advantage of widely available skills and machines. High productivity growth levels attained by leading edge service companies indicate that service sector managers who wisely implement available technology and choose skillful workers can significantly improve their companies’ productivity. The culprits for service-sector productivity stagnation are the forces-such as corporate takeovers and unnecessary governmental regulation-that distract managers from the task of making optimal use of available resources.
T-3-Q33
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the budget deficit explanation for the discrepancy mentioned in line 27?
A. Research shows that the federal budget deficit has traditionally caused service companies to invest less money in research and development of new technologies.
B. New technologies have been shown to play a significant role in companies that have been able to increase their service productivity.
C. In both service sector and manufacturing, productivity improvements are concentrated in gains in quality.
D. The service sector typically requires larger investments in new technology in order to maintain productivity growth than dose manufacturing
E. High interest rates tend to slow the growth of manufacturing productivity as much as they slow the growth of service-sector productivity in the United States.
T-3-Q34
The passage states which of the following about the effect of foreign competition on the American manufacturing sector since the 1970’s?
A. It has often been exaggerated.
B. It has not been a direct cause of job loss.
C. It has in large part been responsible for the subsequent slowing of productivity growth.
D. It has slowed growth in the demand for manufactured goods in the United States.
E. It has been responsible for the majority of American jobs lost in manufacturing.
T-3-Q35
It can be inferred from the passage that which of the following was true of the United States manufacturing sector in the years immediately prior to 1980?
A. It was performing relatively poorly.
B. It was in a position of world prominence.
C. It was increasing its productivity at an annual rate of 3 percent.
D. It was increasing its productivity at an annual rate of 1 percent.
E. Its level of productivity was higher than afterward.
T-3-Q36
The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about productivity improvements in United States service companies?
A. Such improvements would be largely attributable to efficiencies resulting from corporate takeovers.
B.Such improvements would depend more on wise implementation of technology than on managers’ choice of skilled workers.
C.Such improvements would be more easily accomplished if there were fewer governmental regulations of the service sector.
D.Such improvements would require companies to invest heavily in the development of new technologies.
E. Such improvements would be attributable primarily to companies’ facing global competitive pressure.
13 group interview
都说本文不难,主要是指出了group 的两个缺点
P1,说group interview有什么好处啦,可以降低训练interviewer的成本,可以看被interview的人在有竞争对手时的反应,以及看他在压力下的表现,也可以一次比较很多人,找出最适合的candidate...等等,这些好处使得越来越多公司选择group interview, regardless of "valid interview practice",然后转折说还是有坏处的;(此处有主题题)。 P2, 指出它的不足,共有两点,分别是从interviewer和applicants的角度说明的。其中第一点是说面试官在记录的时候可能应接不暇,无法记录所有面试者的信息和反应,说interviewer可能无法接受大量的信息会影响selection。说研究结果说group interview考验interviewer mulitasking的能力,因为他们一次要注意很多人,结果可能做出NEGATIVE DECISION P3,说第二坏处是面试者中人有些人可能在面试中有所警觉,不能完全发挥,interviewee要太多的关注其他人说过什么,使得他们没有办法充分的表达自己的想法。还有什么被interview的人在有其他人在场的时候self-disclose不够多,因为隐私等方面的原因不愿意多透露自己的信息而且不愿意完全表现自己,这又影响了selection。结果也导致面试官做出了NEGATIVE DECISION
考题:
1,这篇文章第一段与后两段的关系?
2,group interview 产生的影响是?
3,一道infer题,定位在第二段,
4,有道题选作者最有可能怎么认为,我选的牺牲information accuracy换取time saving |