Europe is desperate to succeed in business. Two years ago, the European Union"s Lisbon summit set a goal of becoming the world"s leading economy by 2010. But success, as any new-age executive coach might tell you, requires confronting the fear of failure. That is why Europe"s approach to bankruptcy urgently needs reform. In Europe, as in the United States, many heavily indebted companies are shutting up shop just as the economy begins to recover. Ironically, the upturn is often the moment when weak firms finally fail. But America"s failures have a big advantage over Europe"s weaklings: their country"s more relaxed approach to bankruptcy. In the United States the Chapter 11 law makes going bust an orderly and even routine process. Firms in trouble simply apply for breathing space from creditors. Managers submit a plan of reorganization to a judge, and creditors decide whether to give it a go or to come up with one of their own. Creditors have a say in whether to keep the firm running, or to liquidate it. If they keep it running, they often end up with a big chunk of equity, if not outright control. But shutting a bust European company is harder in two other ways. First, with no equivalent of Chapter 11, bankruptcy forces companies to stop trading abruptly. That damages the value of the creditors" potential assets, and may also cause havoc for customers. Second, a company that trades across the European Union will find that it has to abide by different bankruptcy laws in the 15 member states, whose courts and administrators may make conflicting and sometimes incompatible stipulations. The absence of provision for negotiations between companies and creditors increases the temptation for government to step in. When governments do not come to the rescue, the lack of clear rules can lead to chaos. As a result of all this, Europe"s teetering firms miss the chance to become more competitive by selling assets to others who might manage them more efficiently. Their sickly American rivals survive, transformed, to sweep the field. An opportunity now exists to think again about Europe"s approach to bankruptcy. The European Union is expected to issue a new directive on the subject in May. Germany has begun to update its insolvency law. And last year Britain produced a white paper saying that a rigid approach to bankruptcy could stifle the growth needed to meet Lisbon"s goals.
单选题 One of goals set by the European Union"s Lisbon summit is
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:题干问:"欧联邦在里斯本的最高会议的目的是…"。本题考查的是文章的背景。从文章第一句看出,他们的目的是"想得到世界经济的主导地位"。而选项"让更多公司破产"不符合原文题意,"改变破产的方法"不是里斯本最高会议的目标,"比美国公司更具有优势"在原文有提及,但不符合本题题意。
单选题 The word "weaklings"(Paragraph 2) most probably means
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:题干问:"第2自然段的weaklings意思是…"。根据第2自然段的词汇概念的重复可以看出"weaklings"指"陷入债务的公司"。而选项"不通情理的债权人","有竞争力的对手"以及"有效的谈判者"虽然在原文都有提及,但不符合本题题意。
单选题 According to what is beyond the ability of Europe"s firms now is
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:题干问:"根据本文,欧洲的公司现在还没有能力…"。根据文章第5自然段的明显阐述,这是欧美公司的对比,美国公司有的欧洲公司没有,所以选择"当他们破产的时候与他们的债权人讨论、协商"。而选项"能够有权利获得破产的更加宽松的途径","在需要的时候把公司的计划交给法官"以及"把资产卖给能有效管理的人"这些都是美国公司具有的,而不是欧洲公司具有的,所以皆不符合题意。
单选题 Besides applying for breathing space from creditors, managers in American firms can also
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:题干问:"在美国公司的经理除了可以申请喘息的空间得到债权人的宽容外,还能…"。根据文章对欧美公司的对比看出,美国公司有法律的援助,而欧洲公司没有,所以选择答案选项。而选项"要求政府干预"这是欧洲公司的,"破坏债权人潜在的资产"文章中有重复概念的词汇,但是没有此含义,"和比较严厉的债务人在国外进行和谈"与文章意思相反,原文讲的是债权不是债务,所以皆不符合题意。
单选题 Which of the following is TRUE according to the text?
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】解析:题干问:"根据原文,下列正确的是…"。本文的中心是"帮助欧洲的公司的最好途径就是如何使他们的破产变得容易或宽容一些",答案选项表达了此意思。而选项"实现里斯本目标应该先消除暴乱"与原文意思相反,"在美国,应该早就产生一种严格的破产法,对美国加以改变"原文指的是改变的不是美国,而是欧洲,"关闭一家没有能力的美国公司就意味着结束很多资产和债务"与原文事实不符,所以皆不符合题意。