Well, no gain without pain, they say. But what about pain without gain? Everywhere you go in America, you hear tales of corporate revival. What is harder to establish is whether the productivity revolution that businessmen assume they are presiding over is for real. The official statistics are mildly discouraging. They show that, if you lump manufacturing and services together, productivity has grown on average by 1.2% since 1987. That is somewhat faster than the average during the previous decade. And since 1991, productivity has in creased by about 2% a year, which are more than twice the 1978-1987 averages. The trouble is that part of the recent acceleration is due to the usual rebound that occurs at the point in a business cycle, and so is not conclusive evidence of a revival in the underlying trend. There is, as Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary, says, a "disjunction" between the mass of business anecdote that points to a leap in productivity and the picture reflected by the statistics. Some of this can be easily explained. New ways of organizing the workplace all that reengineering and downsizing—are only one contribution to the overall productivity of an economy, Which is driven by many other factors such as joint investment in equipment and machinery, new technology, and investment in education and training. Moreover, most of the changes that companies make are intended to keep them profitable, and this need not always mean increasing productivity: switching to new markets or improving quality can matter just as much. Two other explanations are more speculative. First, some of the business restructuring of recent years may have been ineptly done. Second, even if it wag well done, it may have spread much less widely than people suppose. Leonard Schlesinger, a Harvard academic and former chief executive of Au Bong Pain, a rapidly growing chain of bakery cafes, says that much "reengineering" has been crude. In many cases, he believes, the loss of revenue has been greater than the reductions in cost. His colleague, Michael Beer, says that far too many companies have applied reengineering in a mechanistic fashion, chopping out costs without giving sufficient thought to long-term profitability. B.B.D.O."s A1 Rosen shine is blunter. He dismisses a lot of the work of re engineering consultants as mere rubbish—"the worst sort of ambulance cashing."

单选题 According to the author, the American economic situation is ______.

【正确答案】 A

【答案解析】解析：这是一道中心大意概括题。作者如何看待美国的经济形势?首先，作者在第一段中对美国经济复苏的传闻提出了质疑：商家认为他们为提高生产效益所进行的改革是否真的产生了效果?接着在第二段中，作者又通过官方的统计数字对美国的经济形势进行了分析：尽管从表面上看生产率有了很大提高，但其部分原因是由于在每个商业循环的同一阶段通常都会出现的反弹(usual rebound)所造成的。因此还不能以此作为结论性的证据来说明美国经济已呈现出复苏的态势。选项"不如表面看上去的那么好"恰恰反映了作者的上述观点，其它各项均属于商业家的乐观估计。

单选题 The official statistics on productivity growth ______.

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】解析：这是一道事实分析题。根据第二段内容及该段最后一句财政大臣Robert Rubin所言："商业界有关生产率大幅度提高的传闻与官方统计数字所展示的情景并不吻合"，可以推断，选项"官方有关生产率提高的调查统计结果并未达到商业家们所期望的目标"与此意吻合。选项"不包括商业循环中通常会出现的反弹"及"没能友映出美国经济的真实情况"，均有悖作者的本意，而"达到了商业家所期望的目标"，与原意背道而驰。

单选题 The author raises the question "what about pain without gain" because ______.

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】解析：这是一道事实辨析题。本篇开头作者引用了一句谚语：没有辛劳，就没有收获。接着话锋一转，提出反问：那么只有辛劳，没有收获呢?这一反问显然是有其寓意的，它与文章的主题有关。文章第二段中，作者通过官方统计数字说明美国的经济形势远非商业家们估计的那样乐观。随后，作者又在下面的三个段落中通过具体事实说明在美国所进行的提高生产效益的改革并未取得预期的效果：许多公司的机构重组(reengineering)很不成熟，致使"收益上的损失远远超出了成本的降低"；为数更多的公司则以简单机械的方式进行机构重组，他们考虑的只是降低成本而对长远利益(long term profitability)缺乏充分考虑…这样既不完善又问题重重的改革其结果必然是劳而无功的。选项B"他认为为提高生产效益所进行的改革未见成效"，正是作者提出反问的寓意所在；"他怀疑"没有辛劳就没有收获"这句话的真实性"，显然误解了作者的意图；"他怀疑官方的统计数字会产生误导"亦非事实；"他有结论性的证据来证明美国的经济已经复苏"，正是作者所要批驳与否定的观点。

单选题 Which of the following statements is NOT mentioned in the passage?

【正确答案】 A

【答案解析】解析：这是一道事实辨析题。本题在选择时可采用排除法。选项"新型的组织工厂车间的方法可能会有助于生产效益的提高"与文章第三段第二句："新型的组织工厂车间的方法—包括机构重组及缩小规模—只不过是促进某一经济总体生产效益提高的一个因素"在意思上相吻合。选项"降低成本并不一定能获得长远利益"可以从文章末段倒数第二句中获得依据。a bunch of good for nothing恰好与本篇尾句的mere rubbish相对应，构成平行信息。唯有"彻底的改革是提高生产效益所必不可少的"在文中无据可依。