扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / GMATLA-RC-64
Most pre-1990 literature on businesses' use of information technology (IT)—defined as any form of computer-based information system—focused on spectacular IT successes and reflected a general optimism concerning IT's potential as a resource for creating competitive advantage. But toward the end of the 1980's, some economists spoke of a "productivity paradox": despite huge IT investments, most notably in the service sectors, productivity stagnated. In the retail industry, for example, in which IT had been widely adopted during the 1980's, productivity (average output per hour) rose at an average annual rate of 1.1 percent between 1973 and 1989, compared with 2.4 percent in the preceding 25-year period. Proponents of IT argued that it takes both time and a critical mass of investment for IT to yield benefits, and some suggested that growth figures for the 1990's proved these benefits were finally being realized. They also argued that measures of productivity ignore what would have happened without investments in IT—productivity gains might have been even lower. There were even claims that IT had improved the performance of the service sector significantly, although macroeconomic measures of productivity did not reflect the improvement.
But some observers questioned why, if IT had conferred economic value, it did not produce direct competitive advantages for individual firms. Resource-based theory offers an answer, asserting that, in general, firms gain competitive advantages by accumulating resources that are economically valuable, relatively scarce, and not easily replicated. According to a recent study of retail firms, which confirmed that IT has become pervasive and relatively easy to acquire, IT by itself appeared to have conferred little advantage. In fact, though little evidence of any direct effect was found, the frequent negative correlations between IT and performance suggested that IT had probably weakened some firms' competitive positions. However, firms' human resources, in and of themselves, did explain improved performance, and some firms gained IT-related advantages by merging IT with complementary resources, particularly human resources. The findings support the notion, founded in resource-based theory, that competitive advantages do not arise from easily replicated resources, no matter how impressive or economically valuable they may be, but from complex, intangible resources.
The passage is primarily concerned with
describing a resource and indicating various methods used to study it
presenting a theory and offering an opposing point of view
providing an explanation for unexpected findings
demonstrating why a particular theory is unfounded
resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology
此讲解的内容由AI生成，还未经人工审阅，仅供参考。
正确答案是 C。该文章主要讨论的是，尽管在1980年代末必须进行大量的 IT 投资，但服务部门的生产率仍然停滞不前，这一现象被称为生产力悖论。文章试图解释这些出乎意料的发现。
unexpected findings = "productivity paradox"
错选b：并没有全文反对。实际上开头写的很多人认为it是好的事物，文章最后也同意了。
E. 解决关于技术使用的分歧意见（未涉及解决争端，非正确选项）
C. 对意外的调查结果作出解释（通篇解释 paradox: IT 没有带来预料中的经济优势，即使段末说明了一些好处，也是和其他补充一起获得，不是单纯依靠 IT, 正确）
unexpected findings = "productivity paradox"
文章主旨讨论IT 会不会造成competitive advantage。传统观点认为会，然而 在service sectors, productivity 上有个新finding，根据这个新finding 进行解释。
unexpected findings = "productivity paradox"
文章主旨讨论IT 会不会造成competitive advantage。传统观点认为会，然而 在service sectors, productivity 上有个新finding，根据这个新finding 进行解释。
得出结论是that competitive advantages do not arise from easily replicated resources, no matter how impressive or economically valuable they may be, but from complex, intangible resources.
C. unexpected findings = "productivity paradox"
E. “But some observers questioned why, if IT had conferred economic value, it did not produce direct competitive advantages for individual firms. ” 反对者并不是反对使用IT技术，而是质疑为什么IT技术没有带来明显的竞争优势
预期和事实的对立，不是观点上的disagreement
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
unexpected findings就是productivity paradox
unexpected findings是it是否引起竞争优势，第一段七嘴八舌各种解释其实有，为什么没有，第二段重点说resource-based theory offers an answer
productivity paradox-->unexpected findings
E，应该改成解决一个分歧关于IT对公司获取竞争优势的帮助性，而不是a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology，作者是同意使用IT技术的，只是IT技术已经变得普遍，不再稀缺、难以获得，不是复杂的无形资源，所以它不能产生竞争优势。
所以是“Resource-based theory offers an answer”中的 answer=explanation
要读懂文章的思路：面对IT带来的productivity paradox这个问题， Proponents of IT认为。。。 observers对proponent的看法有疑问，Resource-based theory提供了对于这个疑问的解答。只有看懂了文章的思路才可以选对这种主旨题~
作者一开始是给了很多两派观点的来来回回，最后在一个来回的时候引出了resourse-base的理论，并认为这个理论是有说服力的，选c
误选了d，d错在“IT促进行业发展”并没有形成一个理论，只是一个大家的一个看法和期待，更涉及不到理论的建立
But some observers questioned why, if IT had conferred economic value, it did not produce direct competitive advantages for individual firms. Resource-based theory offers an answer...
一些观察质疑如果IT真的产生经济价值，为什么IT没有产生给公司直接的竞争优势。Resourece-based theoty给出了答案
e 不是technology的使用，而是结果。
行文思路应该是1.发现productivity paradox 2.proponents对此的解释 3.observer提出的question 4.提出Resource-based theory来解释observer的疑问
unexpected finding: some economists spoke of a "productivity paradox"
productivity stagnated 是 unexpected findings.
disagreement regarding不是use，而是IT技术本身
这篇文章思路应该是这样的： 第一段：第一句先讲IT可以create competitive advantage，第二句讲了经济学家们提出了一个paradox表示IT不能创造advantage，反而会降低生产力，接着举了一个例子，然后接下来就是IT的簇拥们来解释了原因，比如效果没有那么快实现啊、测量方法有问题等，并反驳经济学家的观点； 第二段：首先observers进一步提出了问题为什么IT的效果（competitive advantage）没有立即（direct）实现，后面部分就都是为了解释这个问题的，解释说IT要和其他resources结合起来才能实现competitive advantage的增强，easily replicated resources是行不通的。 所以从整个文章结构上来看就是：提出一个概念以及其效果→提出问题→做出解释（explanation）→进一步提出问题→解释（