If sustainable competitive advantage depends on work-force skills, American firms have a problem. Human resource management is not traditionally seen as central to the competitive survival of the firm in the United States. Skill acquisition is considered an individual responsibility. Labor is simply another factor of production to be hired ——rented at the lowest possible cost ——much as one buys raw materials or equipment.The lack of importance attached to human-resource management can be seen in the corporate hierarchy. In an American firm the chief financial officer is almost always second in command. The post of head of human-resource management is usually a specialized job, off at the edge of the corporate hierarchy. The executive who holds it is never consulted on major strategic decisions and has no chance to move up to Chief Executive Officer (CEO). By way of contrasts, in Japan the head of human-resource management is central ——usually the second most important executive after the CEO, in the firm’s hierarchy.While American firms often talk about the vast amounts spent on training their work forces, in fact they invest less in the skills of their employees than do either Japanese or German firms. The money they do invest is also more highly concentrated on professional and managerial employees. And the limited investments that are made in training workers are also much more narrowly focused on the specific skills necessary to do the next job rather than on the basic background skills that make it possible to absorb new technologies.As a result, problems emerge when new breakthrough technologies arrive. If American workers, for example, take much longer to learn how to operate new flexible manufacturing stations than workers in Germany (as they do), the effective cost of those stations is lower in Germany than it is in the United States. More time is required before equipment is up and running at capacity, and the need for extensive retraining generates costs and creates bottlenecks that limit the speed with which new equipment can be employed. The result is a slower pace of technological change. And in the end the skills of the bottom half of the population affect the wages of the top half. If the bottom half can’t effectively staff the processes that have to be operated, the management and professional job that go with these processes will disappear.1.Which of the following applies to the management of human resources in American companies?2.What is the position of the head of human-resource management in an American firm?3.The money most American firms put in training mainly goes to（ ）.4.According to the passage, the decisive factors in maintaining a firm’s competitive

advantage is（ ）.5.What is the main idea of the passage?

A.They hire people at the lowest cost regardless of their skills. B.They see the gaining of skills as their employees’ own business C.They attach more importance to workers than equipment. D.They only hire skilled workers because of keen competition问题2： A.He is one of the most important executives in the firm. B.His post is likely to disappear when new technologies are introduced. C.He is directly under the chief financial executive D.He has no say in making important decisions in the firm.问题3： A.Workers who can operate new equipment. B.Technological and managerial staff C.Workers who lack basic background skills D.Top executives问题4： A.The introduction of new technologies B.the improvement of worker’s basic skills C.the rational composition of professional and managerial employees D.the attachment of importance to the bottom half of the employees问题5： A.American firms are different from Japanese firms in human-resource management B.Extensive retraining is indispensable to effective human resource management C.the head of human resource management must be in the central position in a firm’shierarchy. D.the human resource management strategies of American firms affect their competitive capacity.

Examine the data over time, and you’ll find irrefutable evidence of progress: the decline of war, the increase in life span; （ ） of literacy, democracy, and equal rights; （ ） of privilege based on race, gender, heredity and beliefs.

A.the spread ... the waning B.the spreading ... the wane C.the spreads ... the wanes D.the spreading ... the waning

Although politicians tended to （ ） acknowledging this aspect-of policy too publicly, in their more candid moments they admitted that this cure for inflation went hand in glove with a rise in unemployment above NAIRU.

A.steer clear to B.steer clearing to C.steer clear of D.steer clearing of

The desire for friendship is always with us but we do not always have friends. In fact, the first thing that our own experiences, （1） many of the great philosophers, tell us about true friendship is that it is very rare. A lot of our associations seem like friendships at first, only to weaken and disappear（2）. These lack what might be called the “prerequisites”. In trying to （3） what they are, we must begin by clearly distinguishing between relationships that are accidental and temporary and （4） that are essential and enduring.Aristotle offers us substantial help here by pointing out that there are three kinds of friendship based on utility, on pleasure, and on virtue.The friendship of utility and pleasure go together and are（5） the most common. Everyone has experienced them. People are “friendly” to their business associates, neighbors, the members of their car pool, and（6） casual acquaintances on trains, boats and airplanes. This kind of civility is, （7）, a form of friendship, the friendship of utility, of mutual convenience. （8）, people are “friendly” to their golfing partners, to others at a cocktail party, and to acquaintances who entertain them. This is also a form of friendship, the friendship of （9）, of mutual enjoyment. It could be argued that these sorts of friendship appear to be based upon something（10） reciprocal altruism: we are friendly （11） because cooperating in the office is mutually beneficial in terms of （12）: we like to shop with friends because it is mutually beneficial in terms of increasing the pleasure.These low forms of friendship are not necessarily bad,（13） they are （14）. One of their defects （15） the fact that they depend on and vary with circumstances. This is why they quickly arise and just as quickly disappear. （16）, when the Book of Proverbs says, “A friend loves at all times”, it is referring to （17） form of friendship that does not depend on circumstances. In order to go beyond the effect of time and accident, it must be based on the inherent qualities of the individuals involved. A friendship（18） cannot be a passing friendship.True friendship, then, （19） (although it often includes) both utility and pleasure. For Aristotle, such a friendship must be based on a good moral character. Only in that way can it last. Further, it must develop （20）, since it first depends on familiarity, knowledge, and then—eventually —mutual trust.

A.in spite of B.except C.as well as D.besides
问题2：
A.in time B.on time C.in no time D.at one time
问题3：
A.set down B.set up C.set on D.set against
问题4：
A.these B.those C.things D.others
问题5：
A.in doubt B.no doubt C.for doubt D.at doubt
问题6：
A.such B.their C.even D.the
问题7：
A.in equal degree B.to an extreme degree C.by degrees D.to some degree
问题8：
A.Secondly B.Likely C.Eventually D.Similarly
问题9：
A.utility B.pleasure C.virtue D.trust
问题10：
A.rather than B.rather like C.such as D.as such
问题11：
A.in work B.in the works C.at work D.off work
问题12：
A.having done things B.getting things done C.doing things D.getting things to do
问题13：
A.though B.since C.but D.therefore
问题14：
A.inadequate B.accidental C.essential D.temporary
问题15：
A.results from B.results in C.results to D.results by
问题16：
A.By the same token B.By accident C.By comparison D.By contrast
问题17：
A.a high B.a higher C.the highest D.the
问题18：
A.having anchored B.anchored C.so anchoring D.so anchored
问题19：
A.excludes B.includes C.possesses D.surpasses
问题20：
A.quickly B.slowly C.moderately D.continually

behavior="" after="" september="" 2001.A good case can be made that inequality of power can be a source of peace and stability. No matter how power is measured, some theorists argue, an equal distribution of power among major states has been relatively rare in history, and efforts to maintain a balance have often led to war. On the other hand, inequality of power has often led to peace and stability because there was little point in declaring war on a dominant state. The political scientist Robert Gilpin has argued that "Pax Britannica and Pax Americana, like the Pax Ronuina, ensured an international system of relative peace and security." And the economist Charles Kindleberger claimed that "for the world economy to be stabilized, there has to be a stabilizer, one stabilizer." Global governance requires a large state to take the lead. But how much and what kind of inequality of power is necessary-or tolerable-and for how long? If the leading country defines its interests narrowly and uses its weight arrogantly, it increases the incentives for others to coordinate to escape its hegemony. Some countries chafe under the weight of American power more than others. Hegemony is sometimes used as a term of opprobrium by political leaders in countries such as Russia. The term is used less often or less negatively in countries where American soft power is strong. If hegemony means being able to dictate, or at least dominate, the rules and arrangements by which international relations are conducted, then the United States is hardly a hegemony today. It does have a predominant voice and vote in the IMF, but it cannot alone choose the director. It has not been able to prevail over Europe and Japan in the WTO. It opposed the Land Mines Treaty but could not prevent it from coming into existence.'>

In my view, such a mechanical prediction misses the mark. For one thing, countries sometimes react to the rise of a single power by "bandwagoning", much as Mussolini did when he decided to ally with Hitler. Proximity to and perceptions of threat also affect the way in which countries react. The United States benefits from its geographical separation from Europe and Asia in that it often appears as a less proximate threat than neighboring countries inside those regions. Indeed, in 1945, the Unites States was by far the strongest nation on earth, and a mechanical application of balancing theory would have predicted an alliance against it. Instead, Europe and Japan allied with the Americans because the Soviet Union, while weaker in overall power, posed a greater military threat because of its geographical proximity and its lingering revolutionary ambitions. Today, Iraq and Iran both dislike the United States and might be expected to work together to balance American power in the Persian Gulf, but they worry even more about each other. Nationalism can also complicate predictions. For example, if North Korea and South Korea are reunited, they should have a strong incentive to maintain an alliance with a distant power such as the United States in order to balance their two giant neighbors, China and Japan. But intense nationalism resulting in opposition to an American presence could change this if American diplomacy is heavy-headed. Non-state actors can also have an effect, as witnessed by the way cooperation against terrorists changed some states' behavior after September 2001. A good case can be made that inequality of power can be a source of peace and stability. No matter how power is measured, some theorists argue, an equal distribution of power among major states has been relatively rare in history, and efforts to maintain a balance have often led to war. On the other hand, inequality of power has often led to peace and stability because there was little point in declaring war on a dominant state. The political scientist Robert Gilpin has argued that "Pax Britannica and Pax Americana, like the Pax Ronuina, ensured an international system of relative peace and security." And the economist Charles

s,="" with="" only="" a="" temporary="" slump="" in="" the="" depression="" era.="" demand="" for="" iron,="" steel,="" coal,="" oil,="" gas,="" water,="" and="" food="" rocked="" ahead="" during="" these="" years,="" stimulated="" particularly="" by="" economic="" growth="" associated="" world="" war="" ii.="" 1970's="" industrial="" might="" of="" united="" states="" was="" an="" overpowering="" national="" global="" reality.="" six="" percent="" world's="" people,="" it="" consumes="" annually="" some="" thirty-five="" available="" resources,="" while="" generating="" proportionate="" burdens="" harmful="" wastes.="" americans="" have="" been="" proud="" their="" technical="" preeminence,="" 1950’s="" that="" persuasive="" environmental="" thinking="" began="" to="" remind="" them="" being="" superpower="" is="" mixed="" blessing="" profound="" ecological="" consequences.

1.The Americans have always believed that the United States （ ）.

2.Progress in environmental protection in the United States would not have been possible if it had not been for （ ）.

3.The author's attitude towards environmental laws and regulations in the United States is （ ）.4.In paragraph 3, the author tries to account for （ ）in the United States.

5.The last sentence of the passage means that （ ）.

'>

From the earliest decades of colonization to the 20th century, Americans have celebrated and largely taken for granted the seemingly endless bounty of their land. Not until the early twentieth century did a significant conservation movement develop before the prodding of professional resource managers like the forester Gifford Pinchot, and politicians like Theodore Roosevelt. The movement was a response to an evident dwindling of know mineral resources, the decimation of virgin forests, and a decline in the fish and game available to sportsmen. It was also an integral expression of the political movement known as progressivism, which stressed, among other things, the use of government power, guided by scientific knowledge and democratic principles, to solve national, social, and economic problems. The progressive conservationists pushed into existence a substantial body of legislation at state and national levels that aimed at the rational management of resources. For the most part, however, these laws had more form than substance, and in practice the exploitation of nature continued and largely unchecked.By the 1920’s progressivism had faded away, but its enthusiasm for scientific management and research remained active in the business community. Both the commitment to resource management research by industry and the allocation of funds to seek out untapped resources grew rapidly. Science and technology linked up more closely than before to devise means for their exploitation.The amalgam of science, technology, and business interests not only fostered the continued growth of older industries, but also spawned new industries that fostered economic expansion at great environmental cost. The development of electric power raised manufacturing productivity and the material standard of living, but also polluted the air through the combustion of fossil fuels in huge amounts. The spread of automotive transportation entailed mobility and productivity, but exacted the price of long-term environmental costs, voracious energy consumption, and expropriation of land for railways. The multifaceted petrochemical industry listed among its benefits better agricultural productivity from the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, but contributed heavily to air, water, and soil pollution. The aviation industry promoted mobility and cohesion within the nation and helped to end American isolation from the rest of the world, but promoted a new dimension of air and noise pollution, energy demands, and pressure on scarce land in urban areas for airports.American urbanization and industrialization continued to accelerate between World War I and the 1970's, with only a temporary slump in the depression era. Demand for iron, steel, coal, oil, gas,