单选题 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 increased by about 2% a year, which is more than twice the 1978—1987 average. The trouble is that part of the recent acceleration is due to the usual rebound that occurs at this 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 re-engineering 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 was 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 "re-engineering" 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 re-engineering in a mechanistic fashion, chopping out costs without giving sufficient thought to long-term profitability. BBDO's Al Rosenshine is blunter. He dismisses a lot of the work of re-engineering consultants as mere rubbish—"the worst sort of ambulance-chasing".

单选题 According to the author, the American economic situation is ______.
A. not as good as it seems B. at its turning point
C. much better than it seems D. near to complete recovery
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[解析] 本题考查考生推理判断的能力。第一段第三、四句指出，美国到处都在谈论所谓公司的振兴(tales of corporate revival)，但是，商界自认为正在进行的所谓生产力革命究竟是否名副其实(for real)，这一点却很难确定。第四句实际上是全文的主旨，从反面提出了下文旨在回答的问题，所谓生产力革命根本不存在，官方的统计数字也并不怎么乐观。第二段第五句指出，问题是：最近显示出的增长部分是由商业领域里此时出现的正常的反弹(rebound)造成的，因此，不能将它看作更深层的(当指生产力)振兴的证据。
最后一段引用了几个专家的评价，对目前进行的促进生产力发展的措施进行了否定，特别是罗森夏恩的评价，在他看来，目前负责调整经济的顾问们所做的工作，多数都是垃圾(没有成效)，是典型的“于事无补”(ambulance-chasing)。综合起来看，作者认为美国经济形势正如选项A中所说：并不像表面看上去那样好。因此正确答案为A。
单选题 The official statistics on productivity growth ______.
A. exclude the usual rebound in a business cycle
B. fall short of businessmen's anticipation
C. meet the expectation of business people
D. fail to reflect the true state of economy
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[解析] 本题考查考生理解具体细节的能力。文章第二段指出，官方的统计数字也并不怎么乐观，如果将制造业和服务业算在一起(lump...together)，1987年以来生产率平均增长了1.2%，比前十年的平均指数略有增长；1991年后，生产率每年增长约2%，是1978年至1987年这十年平均指数的一倍多。然而问题是：最近显示出的增长部分是由商业领域里出现的正常的反弹造成的，因此，不能将它看作更深层的(当指生产力)振兴的证据。正如财政部部长罗伯特·鲁宾所说的那样，一方面，大量的商业神话似乎表明生产率的激增(leap)，另一方面，(官方的)统计数字又是另一番景象，二者之间存在着一个“差距”(disjunction)。选项B：与商人的预想不符，符合题意，因此正确答案为B。
单选题 The word "disjunction" (Line 7, Para. 2) probably means ______.
A. division B. connection C. union D. segregation
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[解析] 本题考查考生理解上下文以及猜词的能力。文章第一段提到商人们自认为存在着他们所领导的生产力革命，第二段首句谈到官方的统计数字不让人乐观，接下来本段最后两句是说：近年发生的生产力快速增长部分是由于商业周期通常到了这时候就会出现的反弹造成的，因而它不能成为经济复苏已经是潜在趋势的结论性证据。正如财政部部长罗伯特·鲁宾所说的，生产力发生飞跃的商业传奇与统计数字所反映的情况之间存在着一种“……”。由此可看出，生产力的增长与统计数字反映的情况不一致，也就是有“disjunction”即“脱节”，因此选项A与该词意思接近。因此正确答案为A。
单选题 The author raises the question "what about pain without gain?" because ______.
A. he questions the truth of "no gain without pain"
B. he does not think the productivity revolution works
C. he wonders if the official statistics are misleading
D. he has conclusive evidence for the revival of businesses
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[解析] 本题考查考生对文章内容及作者态度的理解和把握的能力。第一段指出，人们常说：不劳则无所获，但是，要是劳而无获呢?美国到处都在谈论所谓公司的振兴，但是，商界自认为正在进行的所谓生产力革命究竟是否名副其实，这一点却很难确定。作者的观点在此其实已表达得很清楚。
另外，从第三段来看，所谓的生产力革命包括了改组企业(business restructuring，reengineering)等一系列措施，正如第四段所指出的，近年所进行的一些重组措施也许并未奏效，而且，即使有所成效，效果也没有人们想象的那样广泛。在最后一段，作者引用了几个专家的评价，这几位专家对目前进行的促进生产力发展的措施更是持否定态度。作者的引用当然带有很大的倾向性，用以支持自己的观点。因此作者的观点与B选项一致，即他认为所谓的生产力革命并未奏效。因此正确答案为B。A意为：他对“不劳则无所获”的真实性提出质疑。该选择项过于局限于字面意思。C意为：他认为官方的统计数字可能有错。文中没有提到。D意为：他获得了商业振兴的确凿证据。正好相反，他们认为所谓的商业振兴仅仅是假象。
单选题 Which of the following statements is NOT mentioned in the passage?
A. Radical reforms are essential for the increase of productivity.
B. New ways of organizing workplaces may help to increase productivity.
C. The reduction of costs is not a sure way to gain long-term profitability.
D. The consultants are a bunch of good-for-nothings.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[解析] 本题考查考生理解具体细节的能力。A意为：激进的改革对生产力的提高极其重要。这是本文所未提到的，作者只指出促进生产力革命的措施并未奏效，未达到人们想象的效果，而并未提到应该如何才对。因此正确答案为A。
B意为：用新方法改变工作场所可以提高生产力。第三段第二句指出，重新改变工作场所仅是加快一个国家的国民经济综合生产力水平(overall productivity of an economy)的一种措施，促进生产力发展的因素还有许多，如：设备和机器投资、新技术、教育和培训投资等都会带来生产力的提高。
C意为：降低成本并不能保证带来长期利润。根据第五段第三句，在比尔看来，许多公司机械地(in a mechanistic fashion)应用改革措施，降低了成本，但对长期赢利却考虑不够。可见，降低成本和长期赢利并非总是成正比。
D意为：顾问们是一伙饭桶。文章最后一段指出，在罗森夏恩看来，目前负责经济调整的顾问们所做的工作，多数都是垃圾(没有成效)，是典型的“于事无补”。