The United States government has a long-standing policy of using federal funds to keep small business viable. The Small Business Act of 1953 authorized the Small Business Administration (SBA) to enter into contracts with government agencies having procurement powers and to arrange for fulfillment of these contracts by awarding subcontracts to small businesses. In the mid-1960's, during the war on poverty years, Congress hoped to encourage minority entrepreneurs by directing such funding to minority businesses. At first this funding was directed toward minority entrepreneurs with very low incomes. A 1967 amendment to the Economic Opportunity Act directed the SBA to pay special attention to minority-owned businesses located in urban or rural areas characterized by high proportions of unemployed or low-income individuals. Since then, the answer given to the fundamental question of who the recipients should be—the most economically disadvantaged or those with the best prospects for business success—has changed, and the social goals of the programs have shifted, resulting in policy changes.

The first shift occurred during the early 1970's. While the goal of assisting the economically disadvantaged entrepreneur remained, a new goal emerged: to remedy the effects of past discrimination. In fact, in 1970 the SBA explicitly stated that their main goal was to increase the number of minority-owned businesses. At the time, minorities constituted seventeen percent of the nation's population, but only four percent of the nation's self-employed. This ownership gap was held to be the result of past discrimination. Increasing the number of minority-owned firms was seen as a way to remedy this problem. In that context, providing funding to minority entrepreneurs in middle- and high-income brackets seemed justified.

In the late 1970's, the goals of minority-business funding programs shifted again. At the Minority Business Development Agency, for example, the goal of increasing numbers of minority-owned firms was supplanted by the goal of creating and assisting more minority-owned substantive firms with future growth potential. Assisting manufacturers or wholesalers became far more important than assisting small service businesses. Minority-business funding programs were now justified as instruments for economic development, particularly for creating jobs in minority communities of high unemployment.


It can be inferred that the "ownership gap" (see highlighted text) would be narrowed if which of the following were to occur?


Minority entrepreneurs received a percentage of government contracts equal to that received by nonminority entrepreneurs.

Middle- and high-income minority entrepreneurs gave more assistance to their low-income counterparts in the business community.

Minority entrepreneurs hired a percentage of minority employees equal to the percentage of minority residents in their own communities.

The percentage of self-employed minority persons rose to more than ten percent of all self-employed persons.

Seventeen percent of all persons employed in small businesses were self-employed.

考题讲解

题目分析:

题目释义:

细节题目

考点:

推断(Inference)
旨在考察我们对文章的深度理解,以及逻辑推断能力。

这道题目定位在出现高亮词汇的句子中。为了方便推断,首先我们要弄明白什么是“ownership gap”。这样我们找到定位句的前一句。即“At the time, minorities constituted seventeen percent of the nation's population, but only four percent of the nation's self-employed. ”。首先找这句话中到底有什么“gap”,显然是17%,与4%的一个“gap”。用白话说,就是少数民族当老板的太少了。



选项分析:

A选项:少数民族企业可以接受与非少数民族企业一样多的政府合同。我们已经知道,现在的“gap”是没企业,而不是有企业没订单。

B选项:中高收入的给予低收入的少数民族企业些帮助。同理,是企业少而非订单合同少。

C选项:少数民族企业家雇佣的少数民族员工比率与在其社区的少数民族比率相同。这个选项没有说明文中所指的“gap”。文中的“gap”是老板少,不是员工少。

D选项:
Correct。少数民族老板上升到所有老板的10%这个就是考点中所说的“gap”。解释在考点中,这里不赘述了。

E选项:
17%的小商业雇佣人员是老板。这个和“gap”无关,因为不知道这些人是否是少数民族。

展开显示

登录注册 后可以参加讨论

Prep2007E1-RC