The view has prevailed for the better part of the twentieth century that small firms do not perform an important role in Western economies. Official policies in many countries have favored large units of production because there were strong reasons to believe that large firms were superior to small firms in virtually every aspect of economic performance--productivity, technological progress, and job security and compensation. However, in the 1970s, evidence began to suggest that small firms in some countries were outperforming their larger counterparts. Perhaps the best example of this trend was in the steel industry, where new firms entered the market in the form of "mini-mills," and small-firm employment expanded, while many large companies shut down plants and reduced employment. Although no systematic evidence exists to determine unequivocally whether smaller units of production are as efficient as large firms or are, in fact, more efficient, some researchers have concluded that the accumulated evidence to date indicates that small firms are at least not burdened with an inherent size disadvantage.
Thus, an alternative view has emerged in the economics literature, arguing that small firms make several important contributions to industrial markets. First, small firms are often the source of the kind of innovative activity that leads to technological change. Small firms generate market turbulence that creates additional dimensions of competition, and they also promote international competition through newly created niches. Finally, small firms in recent years have generated the preponderant share of new jobs.
However, empirical knowledge about the relative roles of large and small firms is generally based upon anecdotal evidence and case studies, and such evidence has proved inadequate to answer major questions concerning the role of small firms across various industries and nations. An additional difficulty is that it is not obvious what criteria one should use to distinguish small firms from large ones. While a "small firm" is often defined as an enterprise with fewer than 500 employees, research studies of small firms use a wide variety of definitions.
The passage suggests which of the following about the empirical study of small firms' role?
Anecdotal evidence does not support the theory that small firms' role is significant.
Degrees of market turbulence are the primary indicator of small firms' role.
An examination of new niches created by small firms has provided important data for the analysis of such firms' role.
Case studies have provided reliable evidence to answer major questions concerning small firms' role.
A more precise definition of the term "small firm" is crucial to making a conclusive analysis about small firms' role.
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。
根据题设定位于第三段。是标准的细节题目,基本上找到了更细的定位点也就能从容解题。
选项分析:
A选项:轶事证据不支持小公司的地位很重要这个理论。第三段第一句话就提到轶事证据是不足以支持而不是不支持。
B选项:市场变动的等级是小公司地位重要性的主要指示物。提到市场变动的地方与经验研究无关。
C选项:对小公司创造的特定市场的检验给分析这些公司的地位提供了重要的信息。同“B”选项,它们的关键词都出现在第二段,与经验研究无关。
D选项:案例研究提供了可靠的证据来回答小公司地位的主要问题。定位在“case studies, and such evidence has proved inadequate to answer major questions concerning the role of small firms across various industries and nations.”。可见案例研究提供的证据不足以证明小公司的地位。
E选项:Correct. 一个更加精确的小公司的定义对于分析小公司的地位是重要的。文中最后部分说明了另一个困难就是无法准确划分小公司。所以一个更加精确的划分细则是很重要的。
错选A,原文 proved inadequate to answer(不足以支持),选项does not support(不支持)。应选E, 一个更加精确的小公司的定义对于分析小公司的地位是重要的。文中最后部分说明了另一个困难就是无法准确划分小公司。所以一个更加精确的划分细则是很重要的。
E 选项已经另起一句了,in addition. 题目中问的empirical ..., 但是E选项已经不属于这一部分了吧?怎么判断E选项到底属于不属于开始的这个empirical study?
1不足以支撑和2没有确切标准衡量都是empirical study所发现的,不能只定位在第一句话,要理解整段。additional 不是另一个不相关的点,而是指两个点中的另一个。
choice a, 不是不支持,而是不足以支持
such evidence has proved inadequate to answer major questions concerning the role of small firms across various industries and nations
注意文章中提及empirical knowledge 的“另一个困难”,如果A错了,则E就是正确的选项
A选项是必错的,因为不是does not support而是inadequate to support;而E选项在原文提及的additional difficulty到底是不是另外一个完全和empirical study无关的困难是不确定的,因此二者综合下来看选择E(主旨就是排除必错选相对正确的)
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
不足以支持和不支持,这就离谱,看到A 直接选了
inadequate to answer != not support
inadequate to answer != not support
cannot define 同样是 empirical knowledge (自己YY成theoretical了)注意这个additional 是位于Empirical knowledge以下的
A.轶事证据不支持小公司的地位很重要这个理论。第三段第一句话就提到轶事证据是不足以支持而不是不支持。A错
An additional difficulty is that it is not obvious what criteria one should use to distinguish small firms from large ones.
感觉最后一段只是说empirical knowledge还不足以回答很多关于roles of small firms的问题 也没说小公司到底重要不重要 因为前两段说了是evidence 也不算是empirical knowledge吧。。。
而且不能看到同样关键字就选
An additional difficulty is that it is not obvious what criteria one should use to distinguish small firms from large ones. 。一个额外的困难是,该用什么样的标准去区分公司和大公司的不明显。也就是说,没有什么好办法区分大公司小公司。
A选项看来是很有迷惑性,不仔细读题,还是会犯错误了。
错选A, such evidence has proved inadequate to answer major questions 和 Anecdotal evidence does not support the theory ,不足以支持和不支持是两种概念,所以选则E.
a difficulty 那个句子蛮重要的,我居然没看。定位准了也要主要前后文看看!!!
inadequate ≠ not support
A,dose not support 不支持——inadequate to support不足以支持 错
主要是得理解最后一段想表达的主要含义,而最后一段第一句就是要引出最后一段想表达的,是服务最后一段主要含义的,最后一段我是被这个“ An additional difficulty”给迷糊了,以为 An additional difficulty后面说的是和前面都无关的事情的,mark一下
inadequate to support does not mean not support
最后一段应该是想表达|第二段小公司各种好这个argument的论据的存在的一些问题,包括证据本身造成的不充分支持,和论证时大小公司定义不清楚两大问题。
A说反了,应该是支持的,但是不充分
D表达了第三段的逻辑内涵,就是需要定义清楚才能做出conclusion