(This passage is excerpted from material published in 1997.)
Whereas United States economic productivity grew at an annual rate of 3 percent from 1945 to 1965,it has grown at an annual rate of only about 1 percent since the early 1970's. What might be preventing higher productivity growth? Clearly, the manufacturing sector of the economy cannot be blamed. Since 1980, productivity improvements in manufacturing have moved the United States from a position of acute decline in manufacturing to one of world prominence. Manufacturing, however, constitutes a relatively small proportion of the economy. In 1992, goods-producing businesses employed only 19.1 percent of American workers, whereas service-producing businesses employed 70 percent. Although the service sector has grown since the late 1970's, its productivity growth has declined.
Several explanations have been offered for this decline and for the discrepancy in productivity growth between the manufacturing and service sectors. One is that tra- ditional measures fail to reflect service-sector productivity growth because it has been concentrated in improved quality of services. Yet traditional measures of manufacturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the undermeasurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate. Others argue that since the 1970's, manufacturing workers, faced with strong foreign competition, have learned to work more efficiently in order to keep their jobs in the United States, but service workers, who are typically under less global competitive pressure, have not. However, the pressure on manufacturing workers in the United States to work more efficiently has generally been overstated, often for political reasons. In fact, while some manufacturing jobs have been lost due to foreign competition, many more have been lost simply because of slow growth in demand for manufactured goods.
Yet another explanation blames the federal budget deficit: if it were lower, interest rates would be lower too, thereby increasing investment in the development of new technologies, which would spur productivity growth in the service sector. There is, however, no dearth of techno- logical resources; rather, managers in the service sector fail to take advantage of widely available skills and machines. High productivity growth levels attained by leading- edge service companies indicate that service-sector managers who wisely implement available technology and choose skillful workers can significantly improve their companies' productivity. The culprits for service-sector productivity stagnation are the forces—such as corporate takeovers and unnecessary governmental regulation—that distract managers from the task of making optimal use of available resources.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the budget-deficit explanation for the discrepancy mentioned in highlight text?
Research shows that the federal budget deficit has traditionally caused service companies to invest less money in research and development of new technologies.
New technologies have been shown to play a significant role in companies that have been able to increase their service productivity.
In both the service sector and manufacturing, productivity improvements are concentrated in gains in quality.
The service sector typically requires larger investments in new technology in order to maintain productivity growth than dose manufacturing.
High interest rates tend to slow the growth of manufacturing productivity as much as they slow the growth of service-sector productivity in the United States.
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
答案是 B。这个解释是因为文章中提到,预算赤字解释不能作为生产力差异的最佳解释,并表明领先的服务公司在新技术的使用方面取得了高生产力增长水平的例子,从而削弱了预算赤字的解释。因此,选择 B 选项,即“研究表明,新技术在能够提高服务生产力的公司中起着重要作用”,会弱化预算赤字的解释,是正确答案。
注意题目是怎么问的...
budget deficit是如何来影响两个行业之间的discrepancy的
因为高利率降低工业与服务业一样的投资数额,所以工业的产量增长应该与服务业一致,所以削弱
MARK
取非。rate的影响一样大
对于discrepancy有三个解释,第二段说了traditional measures和foreign competition,第三段才说了题目问的budget-deficit。C选项是第二段的内容排除。
e: 高率---slow the rate as the same
逆否命题:increase the rate as the same---低率
因为比率是相同的,削弱
discrepancy是指为什么manufacturing的productivity增长了,而service sector的productivity下降。budget的explanation是说因为interest rate的上升导致的,第三段第一句说道利率越低,投资越好,productivity就高,而现在service sector的productivity低就是因为利率高造成的。E选项正确在于,它说道利率贵manufacturing和service sector的影响是一样的,也就是不会出现一个growth了另一个却decline,就weaken了budget这个解释
E选项说当interest rate变高的时候,两个sector收到的negative影响是一样的,从中推出当interest 降低时,两个sector受到的positive影响也应该一样