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.
Which of the following best describes the function of the second paragraph in the passage as a whole?
It narrows the scope of the topic introduced in the first paragraph.
It presents an example of the type of change discussed in the first paragraph.
It cites the most striking instance of historical change in a particular government policy.
It explains the rationale for the creation of the government agency whose operations are discussed in the first paragraph.
It presents the results of policies adopted by the federal government.
题目分析:
题目释义:
细节题目
考点:
评价(Evaluation)
旨在考察我们对文章中某一段的主旨意思的理解,以及对作者作此段落或词的用意的理解。
注意这种考题在GMAT中不像我们国内的英语考试一样,一问就是承上启下,这里要仔细站在作者的角度体会作者的写作心理和写作用意。
第一段的主题是说SBA的援助资金的援助目标一直在小商业范围内变动,但在1967年后就目标就开始转移向了少数民族的创业。而第二段讲的是其中第一个转变。第一段最后一句是过渡句,主要说明的是自从1967年以后,目标在改变,暗示了后文将要说明目标是如何改变的。
选项分析:
A选项:它缩小了第一段所给的主题范围。第一段的主题是说SBA的援助资金的援助目标一直在小商业范围内变动,但在1967年后就目标就开始转移向了少数民族的创业。而第二段讲的是其中第一个转变。所以谈不到缩小第一段的主题范围。
B选项:Correct。它列举了第一段所提的一种改变的一个例子。第二段的确是说明了其中一种改变。又由于有第一段最后一句话的出现,故可以算作是举了一个例子。
C选项:它在一个特定的政府政策的历史变迁中举了一个最引人注目的例子。这个翻译句的前半句没有问题,但是后半句中说是一个“最引人注目的例子”,文中没有提到这一点。
D选项:它解释了一个在第一段讨论过运转问题的政府代理机构的成因。这个机构无疑指的是SBA,第二段的主题并不是讨论SBA的作用,而是那个“shift”。
E选项:它展示了联邦政府采用的政策结果。第二段的目的不是为了展示结果,而是要展示这个“shift”。何况第二段也没用提到这个“shift”的结果是什么。
正确B选项:Correct。它列举了第一段所提的一种改变的一个例子。第二段的确是说明了其中一种改变。又由于有第一段最后一句话的出现,故可以算作是举了一个例子。
错选C选项:它在一个特定的政府政策的历史变迁中举了一个最引人注目的例子。这个翻译句的前半句没有问题,但是后半句中说是一个“最引人注目的例子”,文中没有提到这一点。【通常原文没提到的最高级、比较级的、夸大的选项都是错的】
C.It cites the most striking instance of historical change通常原文没提到的最高级、比较级的、夸大的选项都是错的
选了E,不应该错
第一段结尾提到了shift
第二段就来说这个shift的例子,明显是B
做的时候纠结了b\c,确实没证据说是most striking,但是觉得也不能算个例子吧……错选,就当更没依据就错了吧
It explains the rationale for the creation of the government agency whose operations are discussed in the first paragraph.
意思是解释了政府机构生成的原理 肯定不对啊