单选题 The usual arguments for adding women directors are that diverse boards are more creative and innovative, less inclined to "groupthink" and likely to be more independent from senior management. Numerous studies show that high proportions of women directors coincide with superior corporate performance. But there is little academically accepted evidence of a causal relationship. It may be that thriving firms allow themselves the luxury of attending to social issues such as board diversity, whereas poorly performing ones batten down the hatches. Women do seem to be particularly effective board members at companies where things are going wrong. A 2008 paper on the impact of female directors by Renee Adams and Daniel Ferreira of the University of Queensland and the London School of Economics found that bosses of American firms whose shares perform poorly are more likely to be fired if the firm has a relatively high number of women directors. On average, however, the paper concluded that firms perform worse as the proportion of women on the board increases. There is certainly no shortage of companies capable of producing outstanding results with few or no women on the board. Nor is there any doubt that in many cases low female representation also reflects a lack of meritocracy (rule by merit) in corporate culture. In France, for instance, interlocking board memberships are common. Women, and many other deserving businesspeople, are excluded from the system. But what most prevents women from reaching the boardroom, say bosses and headhunters, is lack of hands-on experience of a firm's core business. Too many women go into functional roles such as accounting, marketing or human resources early in their careers rather than staying in the mainstream, driving profits. Getting men to show up at every board meeting—an effect of having more women on boards—is all very well, but what firms really need is savvy business advice. Yet according to EPWN, the pipeline of female executives is "almost empty": women occupy only 3% of executive roles on boards, compared with 12% of non-executive ones. That suggests that the best way to increase the number of women on boards is to ensure that more women gain the right experience further down the corporate hierarchy. That may be a slower process than imposing a quota, but it is also likely to be a more meaningful and effective one.
单选题 The reason why diverse board is closely linked with thriving company is probably that _____.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】解析:根据题干的diverse board及thrivng company定位到第一段。题干说的“多元化董事会与兴旺的企业紧密相连”与第一段②句中提到的研究结果相符,文中③句说尚未有学术界接受的证据能证明两者之间的因果关系(即多元化董事会能导致企业兴旺)。④句解释说,可能只是因为兴旺的公司才有余力关心类似董事会多元化这样的问题,而效益较差的公司根本无暇顾及此类问题,B项与④句所述对应,故为正确答案。
单选题 A 2008 paper on the impact of female directors suggests that_____.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:根据题干中的A 2008 paper可定位到第二段。该段②句起讲述了该研究的内容,其中③④句从正反两方面指出女性董事对企业的作用有限,甚至作用是负面的:女性董事越多,企业业绩越差;没有女性董事或女性董事很少的企业也能获得成功。由此可知A项的推断是正确的。
单选题 By citing the example of French business, the author intends to show that _____.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:题干中提到的法国商界的例子在第三段②③句。例子都是为论点而服务的,而论点一般在事例的前后。第三段①句亮出了一个鲜明的论点:女董事比例低反映了企业文化中缺少“任人唯贤”的理念(reflects a lack of meritocracy),而③句中提到女性和一些有能力的人士却不能进入董事会正好说明了企业选拨人才存在偏见,而非任人唯贤,C项所述与①句对应,故可确定C项为本题答案。
单选题 According to Paragraph 4, women are difficult to become board directors in that they_____.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】解析:根据题干可直接定位到第四段。该段①句就引用企业老板和猎头的话,指出女性不能进入董事会的原因:lack of hands-on experience of a firm’s core business,即对企业核心业务缺乏实践经验,B项所述与此相符,故可确定B项为本题答案。
单选题 According to EPWN, the best way to increase the number of female board directors is to _____.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:题干中的专有名词EPWN出现在第四段④句,解答本题需同时结合第四、第五段的内容。第四段的主题是阻止女性进入董事会的最大障碍是缺乏与公司核心业务相关的经验,EPWN提供的数据说明女性掌管行政的人数比例太少,正好说明该论点;第五段①句就此问题提出了建议,即ensure that more women gain the right experience...”确保更多的女性得到有用的经验”,这里的right experience与第四段①句中的hands-on experience of a firm’s core business对应,D项所述与此相符,故为本题答案。