考研英語閱讀理解精讀100篇【經(jīng)濟(jì)類】

考研英語閱讀理解精讀100篇unit3 

Unit 3
 

The annual review of American company board practices by Korn/Ferry, a firm of headhunters, is

a useful indicator of the health of corporate governance. This year's review, published on

November 12th, shows that the Sarbanes-Oxley act, passed in 2002 to try to prevent a repeat of

corporate collapses such as Enron's and WorldCom's, has had an impact on the boardroom--albeit

at an average implementation cost that Korn/Ferry estimates at $5.1m per firm.

Two years ago, only 41% of American firms said they regularly held meetings of directors

without their chief executive present; this year the figure was 93%. But some things have been

surprisingly unaffected by the backlash against corporate scandals. For example, despite a

growing feeling that former chief executives should not sit on their company's board, the

percentage of American firms where they do has actually edged up, from 23% in 2003 to 25% in

2004.

Also, disappointingly few firms have split the jobs of chairman and chief executive. Another

survey of American boards published this week, by A.T. Kearney, a firm of consultants, found

that in 2002 14% of the boards of S&P 500 firms had separated the roles, and a further 16%

said they planned to do so. But by 2004 only 23% overall had taken the plunge. A survey

earlier in the year by consultants at McKinsey found that 70% of American directors and

investors supported the idea of splitting the jobs, which is standard practice in Europe.

Another disappointment is the slow progress in abolishing "staggered" boards--ones where only

one-third of the directors are up for re-election each year, to three-year terms. Invented as

a defence against takeover, such boards, according to a new Harvard Law School study by Lucian

Bebchuk and Alma Cohen, are unambiguously "associated with an economically significant

reduction in firm value".

Despite this, the percentage of S&P 500 firms with staggered boards has fallen only slightly-

-from 63% in 2001 to 60% in 2003, according to the Investor Responsibility Research Centre.

And many of those firms that have been forced by shareholders to abolish the system are doing

so only slowly. Merck, a pharmaceutical company in trouble over the possible side-effects of

its arthritis drug Vioxx, is allowing its directors to run their full term before introducing

a system in which they are all re-elected (or otherwise) annually. Other companies' staggered

boards are entrenched in their corporate charters, which cannot be amended by a shareholders'

vote. Anyone who expected the scandals of 2001 to bring about rapid change in the balance of

power between managers and owners was, at best, naive.

注（1）：本文選自Economist；11/13/2004,  p67-67, 4/9p；

注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿1998年真題text 1第2題（1），2002年真題text 2第2題（2），text 5第3題（

3），2004年真題text 4第2題（4）和1999年真題text 1第4題（5）；

1.       The Sarbanes-Oxley act is most probably about_________.

[A] corporate scandal

[B] corporate management

[C] corporate cost

[D] corporate governance

2.       The word “backlash” (Line 3, Paragraph 2) most probably means_________.

[A] a violent force

[B] a strong impetus

[C] a firm measure

[D] a strong negative reaction

3.       According to the text, separating the roles between chairman and chief executive

is________.

[A] a common practice in American companies

[B] what many European companies do

[C] a must to keep the health of a company

[D] not a popular idea among American entrepreneurs

4.       We learn from the text that a "staggered" board________.

[A] is adverse to the increment of firm value

[B] gives its board members too much power

[C] has been abolished by most American companies

[D] can be voted down by shareholders

5.       Toward the board practice of American companies, the writer’s attitude can be said

to

be________.

[A] biased

[B] pessimistic

[C] objective

[D] critical

答案：D D B A D

篇章剖析

本篇文章是一篇議論文，對美國公司的董事會變化緩慢的情況提出了批評。第一段引用一家獵頭公司的年度

評論說明一項旨在防止公司財務(wù)丑聞的法案已經(jīng)對美國公司的董事會產(chǎn)生了影響；在第二段作者筆鋒一轉(zhuǎn)，

說明雖然公司丑聞對于公司董事會的做法產(chǎn)生了一些影響，但仍然有一些方面毫無變化或者變化緩慢。接下

來作者分析了幾種典型的情況；三段指出了一些公司董事和總裁職務(wù)不分的情況；第四斷指出一些公司在廢

除“交錯董事任期”的董事會方面進(jìn)展緩慢；第五段以具體的例子對上述情況加以說明并得出結(jié)論：要改變

職業(yè)經(jīng)理人和公司所有人之間的權(quán)力平衡并非一蹴而就之事。

詞匯注釋

headhunter: [5hedhQntE(r)] n. 用高薪征聘人才者

governance: [5^QvEnEns] n. 治理；管理

boardroom: [5bC:dru:m] n. （董事會）會議室

albeit: [C:l5bi:It] conj. 雖然

backlash: [5bAklAF] n. 激烈反應(yīng)，激烈反對對一個較早行動的對抗性反應(yīng)

take the plunge: 冒險，采取斷然行動

staggered: [5stA^Ed] adj. 交錯的

unambiguously: [5QnAm5bi^juEsli] adv. 明白地,不含糊地

pharmaceutical: [7fB:mE5sju:tikEl] adj. 制藥的；調(diào)藥的

arthritis: [B:5Wraitis] n. 關(guān)節(jié)炎

entrench: [In5trentF] v. 保護(hù)

amend: [E5mend] v. 改正；修改

難句突破

Merck, a pharmaceutical company in trouble over the possible side-effects of its arthritis

drug Vioxx, is allowing its directors to run their full term before introducing a system in

which they are all re-elected (or otherwise) annually.

主體句式：Merck is allowing its directors to run their full term

結(jié)構(gòu)分析：這是一個復(fù)雜句，句子的主語之后又一個較長的同位語短語，句子中還有一個before引導(dǎo)的狀語

，在這個狀語中含有一個which引導(dǎo)的定語從句。before在這種情況下通常譯為“才”。

句子譯文：因為所生產(chǎn)的關(guān)節(jié)炎藥物Vioxx的潛在副作用而陷入困境的默克制藥公司現(xiàn)在允許其董事任期直

到屆滿，然后才會引入一個每年將所有人重新選任一遍（或者別的方法）的制度。

題目分析

1. 答案為D，屬推理判斷題。根據(jù)第一段，the Sarbanes-Oxley act的通過是為了防止再次出現(xiàn)類似安然公

司或者世通公司垮掉的情況。而文章又提到在公司治理方面，該法案已經(jīng)顯現(xiàn)出了一定的影響力�？梢�，該

法案是有關(guān)公司治理的法案。

2. 答案為D，屬猜詞題。首先確定“backlash”與反對公司丑聞有關(guān)，其次，下文對backlash給了一個具體

的例子，就是“越來越多的人認(rèn)為前任總裁不應(yīng)該繼續(xù)留在董事會里”，顯然這符合選項D中的“強(qiáng)烈的對

抗性/否定性反應(yīng)”。

3. 答案為B，屬事實細(xì)節(jié)題。根據(jù)文章第三段最后一句，將董事長和總裁的職務(wù)區(qū)分開來是“歐洲的行業(yè)慣

例”。

4. 答案為A，屬事實細(xì)節(jié)題。根據(jù)文章第四段的一份最新哈佛商學(xué)院研究，“staggered board”是為了防

止公司權(quán)力被奪取而被發(fā)明的，但它顯然“和公司價值的顯著下降有關(guān)”�？梢娺@種交錯董事任期的董事會

不利于公司價值的增長。

5. 答案為D，屬推理判斷題。本文指出雖然出臺了防止公司丑聞的法案，但美國公司的董事會變化依然緩慢

。繼而分析了幾種令人失望的情況。在文章最末作者指出，人們不應(yīng)該天真的相信2001年的丑聞會迅速改變

職業(yè)經(jīng)理人和公司所有人之間的權(quán)力平衡。可見作者對美國公司的董事會持批評的態(tài)度。

參考譯文

獵頭公司“光輝國際”（Korn/Ferry）推出的美國公司董事會慣例年度評論是了解公司治理狀況的有用指南

。今年11月12日發(fā)表的年度評論表明，2002年通過的旨在防止類似安然公司和世通公司垮掉的事情再次發(fā)生

的《薩班-奧西利法案》對董事會已經(jīng)產(chǎn)生了一定的影響---雖然按照“光輝國際”的估計，實施該法案的平

均成本是每家公司510萬美元。

兩年前，只有41%的美國公司說他們會在首席執(zhí)行官不在場的情況下定期舉行董事會；今年這一數(shù)字達(dá)到了

93%。不過，令人驚異的是，對公司丑聞的強(qiáng)烈反對并沒有影響到某些事情的發(fā)展。例如，雖然越來越多的

人認(rèn)為前任總裁不應(yīng)該繼續(xù)留在董事會里，但美國公司董事會中前任總裁的比率不降反升了，從2003年的

23%上升到了2004年的25%。

另外，將董事長和總裁的職務(wù)區(qū)分開來的公司很少，這一點令人頗為失望。一家咨詢公司“A.T.卡尼”公司

在本周發(fā)布的另外一份對美國董事會的調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，2002年標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500家公司中，有14%的董事會已經(jīng)進(jìn)行了

職務(wù)角色的區(qū)分，另有16%的董事會表示計劃這么做�？墒堑�2004年，在全部公司中，只有23%的公司采取了

行動。同年早些時候麥肯錫公司的咨詢師發(fā)布的一項調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，70%的美國董事和投資人支持職務(wù)區(qū)分的想

法，而這在歐洲早已是行業(yè)慣例了。

另一件令人失望的事情就是在廢除“交錯董事任期”的董事會方面進(jìn)展緩慢---所謂交錯董事任期，就是每

年只改選三分之一的董事，而每一屆董事的任期是三年。依據(jù)呂西安·貝布查克和阿爾瑪·科恩的一份最新

哈佛商學(xué)院研究，這種為了防止公司權(quán)力被奪取而發(fā)明的董事會顯然“和公司價值的顯著下降有關(guān)”。

盡管如此，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500公司中有交錯董事任期的董事會比例卻只有輕微下降---“投資人責(zé)任研究中心”的

數(shù)據(jù)顯示，該比率僅從2001年的63%下降到了2003年的60%。許多被股東施壓要求放棄這一制度的公司現(xiàn)在只

是緩慢地著手這一工作。因為所生產(chǎn)的關(guān)節(jié)炎藥物Vioxx的潛在副作用而陷入困境的默克制藥公司現(xiàn)在允許

其董事任期直到屆滿，然后才會引入一個每年將所有人重新選任一遍（或者別的方法）的制度。其他公司交

錯董事任期的董事會是由公司規(guī)章確立的，不能由股東投票改變。如果有人期望2001年的丑聞會迅速改變職

業(yè)經(jīng)理人和公司所有人之間的權(quán)力平衡的話，那么他未免太天真了

二：資料下載

更多資料請訪問：考試吧考研欄目