阅读理解
The list of famous companies founded during economic downturns is long and varied. A 2009 study found that over half of Fortune 500 companies got their start during a downturn or a bear market. A recession, it seems, may not be an entirely bad time to start a company. Indeed, busts (and booms) cast a longer shadow on the business landscape than is commonly realised, because they influence both the rate of business formation and how existing firms are run.
Some argue that recessions speed up the process of economic restructuring—what Joseph Schumpeter called "creative destruction" . The destruction part is easy to see: downturns kill businesses, leaving boarded-up windows on the high street as their gravestones. But recessions may also spur the creation of new businesses.
When people suddenly have less money to spend, clever entrepreneurs may see an opportunity to set up businesses that give them what they want more cheaply or efficiently. Downturns may also swell the ranks of potential firm creators, because many who might otherwise have sought a
stable salary will reinvent themselves as entrepreneurs.
Tough times do not suddenly prompt everyone to start a business. The vast majority of people who reach working age during a downturn still look for a job. But research also suggests that recessions have lasting effects on how executives manage businesses. Antoinette Schoar and Luo Zuo of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that those who began their management careers during a bust were substantially more risk-averse, took on less debt and generally were more conservative managers than the rest of the sample, even many decades later. That will strike critics of the over-leveraged company as thoroughly good news, but it is hard to say whether this effect is entirely benign.
Bosses whose careers began in a recession also tend to be so concerned about cost-effectiveness that the companies they go on to run spend less on research and development. They may thus be too conservative: firms with bosses whose professional baptism came in a weak economy have lower returns on assets than those run by other managers. Why should this be? One plausible explanation is that recessions affect the way people take decisions.
Whether they were set up during a boom or a bust, today's firms are deeply affected by the economic fluctuations of the past.
Some argue that recessions speed up the process of economic restructuring—what Joseph Schumpeter called "creative destruction" . The destruction part is easy to see: downturns kill businesses, leaving boarded-up windows on the high street as their gravestones. But recessions may also spur the creation of new businesses.
When people suddenly have less money to spend, clever entrepreneurs may see an opportunity to set up businesses that give them what they want more cheaply or efficiently. Downturns may also swell the ranks of potential firm creators, because many who might otherwise have sought a
stable salary will reinvent themselves as entrepreneurs.
Tough times do not suddenly prompt everyone to start a business. The vast majority of people who reach working age during a downturn still look for a job. But research also suggests that recessions have lasting effects on how executives manage businesses. Antoinette Schoar and Luo Zuo of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that those who began their management careers during a bust were substantially more risk-averse, took on less debt and generally were more conservative managers than the rest of the sample, even many decades later. That will strike critics of the over-leveraged company as thoroughly good news, but it is hard to say whether this effect is entirely benign.
Bosses whose careers began in a recession also tend to be so concerned about cost-effectiveness that the companies they go on to run spend less on research and development. They may thus be too conservative: firms with bosses whose professional baptism came in a weak economy have lower returns on assets than those run by other managers. Why should this be? One plausible explanation is that recessions affect the way people take decisions.
Whether they were set up during a boom or a bust, today's firms are deeply affected by the economic fluctuations of the past.
单选题
1.It can be inferred from the first paragraph that_____.
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】推断题。根据题干定位到第一段。文中提到A recession，it seems，may not be an entirely bad time to start a company(经济衰退时期看起来并非完全不适合创办新公司)，因此C项正确，bust，create new businesses分别是recession，start a company的同义复现。
单选题
2.By saying "creative destruction" (Para. 2). the author means that downturns_____.
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】含义题。根据题干定位到第二段。第一句讲什么是creative destruction，即recessions speed up the process of economic restructuring(经济衰退加速了经济结构调整的进程)。第二句介绍了其destruction的一面，即killbusinesses。第三句介绍其creative的一面，即spur the creation of new businesses。由此可见B项是对creative destruction的正确解释。
单选题
3.Recessions may spur the creation of new businesses probably because_____.
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】细节题。根据题干定位到第二段最后一句。这是启下性质的句子，因此答案可从第三段找。本段指出经济衰退刺激新企业诞生有两方面的原因：一是人们可支配的收入减少，因此聪明的企业家会抓住这个机会兴办企业，生产更便宜更有效的商品；二是经济衰退可能扩大潜在创业者的规模。纵观四个选项，只有D项“它们(经济衰退)增加了潜在企业家的数量”为正确答案，increase，number,entrepreneurs分别是原文swell，rank，firm creator的同义复现。
单选题
4.The managers who began their careers in a recession don't tend to be_____.
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】细节题。注意此题是反向选择题。根据题干关键词定位到第四、五段。第四段提到took on less debt，即那些人负债更少，A项heavily in debt“负债多”很明显不是他们的特点，因此选A项。
单选题
5.The main idea of this text could be_____.
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】主旨题。此题考查全文主旨，需结合全文，尤其是重点考虑首尾两段。文章首段最后一句说萧条(和繁荣)既影响新企业的设立速度又影响现有企业的运营状况；第二、三段讲经济衰退如何刺激新企业的诞生；第四、五段则讲述经济衰退对管理者的管理方式的影响，即如何影响现有企业的运营状况。最后一段再次总结：不管创建于经济繁荣时期还是衰退时期，今天的公司都深深地受到过去经济波动的影响。可见全文是总分总结构，主旨是经济衰退的影响，且影响涉及两方面：新企业与现有企业。C项entrepreneurs and managers就代表了新企业与现有企业，因此是正确选项。