In recent years, Western business managers have been heeding the exhortations of business journalists and academics to move their companies toward long‐term, collaborative “strategic partnerships” with their external business partners (e.g., suppliers). The experts’ advice comes as a natural reaction to numerous studies conducted during the past decade that compared Japanese production and supply practices with those of the rest of the world. The link between the success of a certain well-known Japanese automaker and its effective management of its suppliers, for example, has led to an unquestioning belief within Western management circles in the value of strategic partnerships. Indeed, in the automobile sector all three United States manufacturers and most of their European competitors have launched programs to reduce their total number of suppliers and move toward having strategic partnerships with a few.
However, new research concerning supplier relationships in various industries demonstrates that the widespread assumption of Western managers and business consultants that Japanese firms manage their suppliers primarily through strategic partnerships is unjustified. Not only do Japanese firms appear to conduct a far smaller proportion of their business through strategic partnerships than is commonly believed, but they also make extensive use of “market-exchange” relationships, in which either party can turn to the marketplace and shift to different business partners at will, a practice usually associated with Western manufacturers.
The author mentions “the success of a certain well-known Japanese automaker” in lines 10–11, most probably in order to
demonstrate some of the possible reasons for the success of a certain business practice
cite a specific case that has convinced Western business experts of the value of a certain business practice
describe specific steps taken by Western automakers that have enabled them to compete more successfully in a global market
introduce a paradox about the effect of a certain business practice in Japan
indicate the need for Western managers to change their relationships with their external business partners
题目分析:
文章推断题:作者为什么提到“一些成功的知名的日本制造商”?
原文:这些成功的制造商和他们有效的供应商管理方法使西方人对strategicpartnerships的价值深信不疑。
选项分析:
A选项:列出一些使企业成功的可能的因素:文章提到这些日本制造商并不是为了列出成功的因素,而是列出西方公司向往SP的原因。
B选项:正确。举出一个具体的使西方人相信某一个企业行为的价值的例子:正是这些日本的著名成功企业,使西方公司相信了sp的重要作用
C选项:描述具体的西方制造商采取的、使他们在全球市场成功的措施:无关。
D选项:介绍一个关于日本企业行为带来的影响的悖论:这里并没有提到“一个悖论”。
E选项:表明西方企业需要改变他们和外部商业伙伴的关系:这里只是列出西方公司向往SP的原因,并没有表明西方企业需要改变。
注意比较B、E
B cite a specific case that has convinced Western business experts of the value of a certain business practice
E indicate the need for Western managers to change their relationships with their external business partners
从立场来看,文章指出当前的模式存在问题,
B是主要内容是a specific case that has convinced ... experts,这是一个客观的陈述,作者的动作是cite,后面都是客观内容
而E indicate the need的立场是有偏向的。文章最后提到relationship (见“but they also make extensive use of “market-exchange” relationships”)但是作者实际并没有提出要change their relationship
注意提出存在的差异问题,并不代表是solution,比如作者提出日本有market-exchange relationship,但是并不意外着要采取这样的措施。
举一个让西方商业专家相信某种商业实践价值的具体案例
cite a specific case理解成了具体的企业案例,所以没选。其实指的是“实际情况”
具体案例也可以啊,主要belief喝convince是意义上的同意替换的感觉
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论