The modern multinational corporation is described as having originated when the owner-managers of nineteenth-century British firms carrying on international trade were replaced by teams of salaried managers organized into hierarchies. Increases in the volume of transactions in such firms are commonly believed to have necessitated this structural change. Nineteenth-century inventions like the steamship and the telegraph, by facilitating coordination of managerial activities, are described as key factors. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century chartered trading companies, despite the international scope of their activities, are usually considered irrelevant to this discussion: the volume of their transactions is assumed to have been too low and the communications and transport of their day too primitive to make comparisons with modern multinationals interesting.
In reality, however, early trading companies successfully purchased and outfitted ships, built and operated offices and warehouses, manufactured trade goods for use abroad, maintained trading posts and production facilities overseas, procured goods for import, and sold those goods both at home and in other countries. The large volume of transactions associated with these activities seems to have necessitated hierarchical management structures well before the advent of modern communications and transportation. For example, in the Hudson's Bay Company, each far-flung trading outpost was managed by a salaried agent, who carried out the trade with the Native Americans, managed day-to-day operations, and oversaw the post's workers and servants. One chief agent, answerable to the Court of Directors in London through the correspondence committee, was appointed with control over all of the agents on the bay.
The early trading companies did differ strikingly from modern multinationals in many respects. They depended heavily on the national governments of their home countries and thus characteristically acted abroad to promote national interests. Their top managers were typically owners with a substantial minority share, whereas senior managers' holdings in modern multinationals are usually insignificant. They operated in a preindustrial world, grafting a system of capitalist international trade onto a premodern system of artisan and peasant production. Despite these differences, however, early trading companies organized effectively in remarkably modern ways and merit further study as analogues of more modern structures.
The author's main point is that
modern multinationals originated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with the establishment of chartered trading companies
the success of early chartered trading companies, like that of modern multinationals, depended primarily on their ability to carry out complex operations
early chartered trading companies should be more seriously considered by scholars studying the origins of modern multinationals
scholars are quite mistaken concerning the origins of modern multinationals
the management structures of early chartered trading companies are fundamentally the same as those of modern multinationals
题目分析:
题目释义:
主旨题目
考点:
主旨(Main idea)
旨在考察我们对文章整体的把握程度,对文章的结构的分析能力和把控能力,以及对作者逻辑的判断。
这篇文章的主旨较容易判断,作者通篇都想告诉我们其实16世纪和17世纪公司就有类似于管理等级制度这样的模式了(没有说16世纪是起源)。以前人们常说的从19世纪英国开始发源是不准确的。
选项分析:
A选项:现代多国公司是从16,17世纪建立的受特许的贸易公司中发源的。这个选项有一定的迷惑性。作者通篇文章确实是说了16,17世纪的公司可以被认为是现代贸易公司的类似物。但是作者没有说明这些公司就是现代贸易公司的起源。也就是说,作者想要告诉大家的是19世纪以前的公司也有可能是现代贸易公司的起源,这个“以前”并不是一定是16,17世纪的公司。
B选项:和现代贸易公司的成功一样,受特许的贸易公司的成功主要依赖于他们可以实现复杂的操作。文中没有提到这个选项的内容。属于无中生有。
C选项:Correct. 在学者研究现代贸易公司的起源时应更加注意考虑早期的受特许的贸易公司。作者通篇用了16,17世纪的贸易公司告诉我们现代贸易公司起源于19世纪是不准确的。而作者也没有说明16世纪就是现代贸易公司的起源,所以作者是想告诉学者或大众要注意早期的贸易公司。
D选项:涉及现代贸易公司起源的问题,学者们的错误十分明显。作者行文中没有提到学者,只是建议大家要考虑早期的贸易公司,没有批评学者错误的意思。
E选项:早期受特许的贸易公司的管理结构基本上与现代贸易公司的管理结构相同。这个选项也比较有迷惑性。作者通过现代公司的管理结构和早期公司的相似性来说明文章开篇提到的多国贸易公司起源问题。由此可见,作者的主旨并不是为了说明管理结构的相似性。
这题很坑啊.......全程没出现过researcher,scholars,结果选项里说“学者应该...”真让人头大
没有提到学者,D错误
选错a modern multinationals originated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with the establishment of chartered trading companies 文中并没有明确提到a modern multinationals originated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
根据最后一句Despite these differences, however, early trading companies organized effectively in remarkably modern ways and merit further study as analogues of more modern structures. 所以c是对的.
c 第一句The modern multinational corporation is described as having originated最后一句early trading companies organized effectively in remarkably modern ways and merit further study as analogues of more modern structures
d 第一段用的是被动,没有提到任何scholar
In reality, however, early trading companies successfully purchased and outfitted ships, built and operated offices and warehouses...
d,,并不是management structures的相似性→只是提到起源问题,而不是结构相似性
D选项:涉及现代贸易公司起源的问题,学者们的错误十分明显。作者行文中没有提到学者,只是建议大家要考虑早期的贸易公司,没有批评学者错误的意思。
全文为了反驳旧观点Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century chartered trading companies, despite the international scope of their activities, are usually considered irrelevant to this discussion
为什么知道这些都是学者的观点呢,翻译成中文为啥C就有了或者大众?
第二段整个就是作者的观点,反驳第一段最后提出的他人观点;第三段是个让步,承认 Early 和 Morden 有不同(promote national interests,minority share,preindustrial world),最后又转折回来(Despite these differences…),表示 Early 是用现代方式组织建立而成的,并能为今后的 Morden 研究提供类比价值,所以没有改变第二段的观点,即反对已有观点,认为 Early 和 Morden 是相关的。
迷惑项E,错在说Early 和 modern are fundamentally the same,但第三段说了两者有诸多不同,最后的转折,也仅承认Early能成为Morden的类比,非复刻,所以错。
主旨题,还是要抓文章脉络和关键词。 第一段最后一句说16,17世纪的特许公司与近代的跨国公司无关,但第二段开头However,说明第二段的观点认为和现代公司有关了。 第三段最后一句话又有个However,说明早期贸易公司管理方式与现代公司有可类比的地方。都强调了2类公司有联系性。其中也只有C选项和脉络相关联了。
对于答案C的解释有些疑问,全篇应该说的还是早期但这个早期贸易应该就是19世纪的,因为在各种描述中,说了这个交易的量很大,而16/17世纪就在文章一段最后提了一下,就说量太小,不考虑。然后通篇介绍了跨国企业的来源,推动的因素,与现在相比的特点,然后最后一句说,及时有这些不同,但是organized effectively in remarkably modern ways,所以还是值得学者作为与现在跨国企业类似的案例来研究的。
对于答案C的解释有些疑问,全篇应该说的还是早期但这个早期贸易应该就是19世纪的,因为在各种描述中,说了这个交易的量很大,而16/17世纪就在文章一段最后提了一下,就说量太小,不考虑。然后通篇介绍了跨国企业的来源,推动的因素,与现在相比的特点,然后最后一句说,及时有这些不同,但是organized effectively in remarkably modern ways,所以还是值得学者作为与现在跨国企业类似的案例来研究的。