2002年英语专业八级考试试题原题及答案解析

2002年专业英语八级考试真题试卷及答案详解

Instead hours are devoted to side issues, playing elaborate games with one another. It seems, therefore, that meetings serve some purpose other than just making decisions.��

All meetings have one thing in common: role-playing. The most formal role is that of

chairman. He sets the agenda, and a good chairman will keep the meeting running on time and to the point. Sadly, the other, informal role-players are often able to gain the upper hand. Chief is the “constant talker”, who just l

oves to hear his or her own voice.��

Then there are the “can?t do” types who want to maintain the status quo. Since they have often been in the organization for a long time, they frequently quote historical experience as an excuse to block change: “It won?t work, we tried that last year and it was a disaster.” A more subtle

version of the “can?t do” type, the “yes, but… ” has emerged recently. They have learnt about the need to sound positive, but they still can?t bear to have things change.��

Another whole sub-set of characters are people who love meetings and want them to continue until 5:30 pm or beyond. Irrelevant issues are their specialty. They need to call or attend meetings, either to avoid work, or to justify their lack of performance, or simply because they do not have enough to do.��

Then there are the “counter-dependents”, those who usually disagree with everything that is said, particularly if it comes from the chairman or through consensus from the group. These people need to fight authority in whatever form.��

Meetings can also provide attenders with a sense of identification of their status and power. In this ease, managers arrange meetings as a means of communicating to others the boundaries of their exclusive club: who is “in”, and who is not.��

Because so many meetings end in confusion and without a decision, another game is played at the end of meetings, called reaching a false consensus. Since it is important for the chairman to appear successful in problem-solving and making a decision, the group reaches a false consensus. Everyone is happy, having s

pent their time productively. The reality is that the decision is so ambiguous that it is never acted upon, or, if it is, there is continuing conflict, for which another meeting is necessary.��

In the end, meetings provide the opportunity for social intercourse, to engage in battle in front of our bosses, to avoid unpleasant or unsatisfying work, to highlight our social status and identity. They are, in fact, a necessary though not necessarily productive psychological sideshow. Perhaps it is our civilized way to moderating, if not preventing, change.��

16. On role-playing, the passage seems to indicate that chairman ___.�� A. talks as much as participants B. is usually a “constant talker”��

C. prefers to take the role of an observer D. is frequently outshone by participants��

17. Which of the following is NOT a distinct characteristic of the three types of participants?�� A. Submissiveness. B. Stubbornness.�� C. Disobedience. D. Lack of focus.��

18. The passage suggests that a false consensus was reached at the end of a meeting in order to ___.��

A. make room for another meeting B. bring an illusory sense of achievement�� C. highlight the importance of a meeting D. go ahead with the agreed programme�� ��

TEXT B

2002年专业英语八级考试真题试卷及答案详解

��

Cooperative competition. Competitive cooperation. Confused? Airline alliances have travellers scratching their heads over what? s going on in the skies. Some folks view alliances as a blessing to travellers, offering seamless travel, reduced fares and enhanced frequent-flyer benefits. Others see a conspiracy of big businesses, causing decreased competition, increased fares and fewer choices. Whatever your opinion, there?s no escaping airline alliances: the marketing hype is unrelenting, with each of the two mega-groupings, Oneworld and Star Alliance, promoting itself as the best choice for all travellers. And, even if you turn away from their ads, chances are they will figure in any of your travel plans. By the end of the year, Oneworld and Star Alliance will between them control more than 40% of the traffic in the sky. Some pundits predict that figure will be more like 75% in 10 years.��

But why, after years of often ferocious competition, have airlines decided to band together? Let?s just say the timing is mutually convenient. North American airlines, having exhausted all means of earning customer loyalty at home, have been looking for ways to reach out to foreign flyers. Asian carders are still

hurting from the region-wide economic downturn that began two years ago——just when some of the airlines were taking delivery of new aircraft. Alliances also allow carriers to cut costs and increase profits by pooling manpower resources on the ground (rather than each airline maintaining its own ground crew) and code

-sharing——the practice of two partners selling tickets and operating only one aircraft.��

So alliances are terrific for airlines-but are they good for the passenger? Absolutely, say the airlines: think of the lounges, the joint FFP (frequent flyer programme) benefits, the

round-the-world fares, and the global service networks. Then there?s the promise of “seamless” travel : the ability to, say, travel from Singapore to Rome to New York to Rio de Janiero, all on one ticket, without having to wait hours for connections or worry about your bags. Sounds

utopian? Peter Buecking, Cathay Pacific? s director of sales and marketing, thinks that seamless travel is still evolving. “It?s fair to say that these links are only in their infancy. The key to

seamlessness rests in infrastructure and information sharing. We?re working on this. ” Henry Ma, spokesperson for Star Alliance in Hong Kong, lists some of the other benefits for consumers: “Global travellers have an easier time making connections and planning their itineraries.” Ma claims alliances also assure passengers consistent service standards.��

Critics of alliances say the much-touted benefits to the consumer are mostly pie in the sky, that alliances are all about reducing costs for the airlines, rationalizing services and running joint marketing programmes. Jeff Blyskal, associate editor of Consumer Reports magazine, says the promotional ballyhoo over

alliances is much ado about nothing. “I don?t see much of a gain for consumers:alliances are just a marketing gimmick. And as far as seamless travel goes, I?ll believe it when I see it. Most airlines can?t even get their own connections under control, let alone coordinate with another airline.”�� Blyskal believes alliances will ultimately result in decreased flight choices and increased costs for consumers. Instead of two airlines competing and each operating a flight on the same route at 70% capacity, the allied pair will share the route and run one full flight. Since fewer seats will be available, passengers will be obliged to pay more for tickets.��

2002年专业英语八级考试真题试卷及答案详解

The truth about alliances and their merits probably lies somewhere between the travel utopia presented by the players and the evil empires portrayed by their critics. And how much they affect you depends on what kind of traveller you are.��

Those who?ve already made the elite grade in the FFP of a major airline stand to benefit the most when it joins an alliance: then they enjoy the FFP perks and advantages on any and all of the member carriers. For example, if you?re a Marco Polo Club “gold” member of Cathay Pacific?s Asia Miles FFP, you will auto

matically be treated as a valuable customer by all members of Oneworld, of which Cathay Pacific is a member—even if you?ve never flown with them before.��

For those who haven?t made the top grade in any FFP, alliances might be a way of

simplifying the earning of frequent flyer miles. For example, I belong to United Airline?s Mileage Plus and generally fly less than 25, 000 miles a year. But I earn miles with every flight I take on Star Alliance member — All Nippon Airways and Thai Airways.��

If you fly less than I do, you might be smarter to stay out of the FFP game altogether. Hunt for bargains when booking flights and you might be able to save enough to take that extra trip anyway. The only real benefit infrequent flyers can draw from an alliance is an inexpensive round-the-world fare.��

The bottom line: for all the marketing hype, alliances aren?t all things to all people-but everybody can get some benefit out of them.��

19. Which is the best word to describe air travellers? reaction to airline alliances?�� A. Delight. B. Indifference. C. Objection. D. Puzzlement��

20. According to the passage, setting up airline alliances will chiefly benefit ___.�� A. North American airlines and their domestic travellers�� B. North American airlines and their foreign counterparts�� C. Asian airlines and their foreign travellers�� D. Asian airlines and their domestic travellers��

21. Which of the following is NOT a perceived advantage of alliances?�� A. Baggage allowance. B. Passenger comfort.�� C. Convenience. D. Quality.��

22. One disadvantage of alliances foreseen by the critics is that air travel may be mere expensive as a result of ___.��

A. less convenience B. higher operation costs�� C. less competition D. more joint marketing��

23. According to the passage, which of the following categories of travellers will gain most from airline alliances?��

A. Travellers who fly frequently economy class. B. Travellers who fly frequently business class.�� C. Travellers who fly occasionally during holidays. D. Travellers who fly economy class once in a while.�� ��

TEXT C

��

2002年专业英语八级考试真题试卷及答案详解

It is nothing new that English use is on the rise around the world, especially in business circles. This also happens in France, the headquarters of the g

lobal battle against American cultural hegemony. If French guys are giving in to English, something really big must be going on. And something big is going on. ��

Partly, it?s that American hegemony. Didier Benchimol, CEO of a French e-commerce software company, feels compelled to speak English perfectly because the Internet software

business is dominated by Americans. He and other French businessmen also have to speak English because they want to get their message out to

American investors, possessors of the world?s deepest pockets.��

The triumph of English in France and elsewhere in Europe, however, may rest on something more enduring. As they become entwined with each other politically and economically, Europeans need a way to talk to one another and to the rest of the world. And for a number of reasons, they?ve decided upon English as their common tongue.��

So when German chemical and pharmaceutical company Hoechst merged with French

competitor Rhone Poulenc last year, the companies chose the vaguely Latinate Aventis as the new company name—and settled on English as the company?s common language. When monetary policymakers from around Europe began meeting at the European Central Bank in Frankfurt last year to set interest rates for the new Euroland, they held their deliberations in English. Even the European Commission, with 11 official languages and a traditionally French-speaking bureaucracy, effectively switched over to English as its working language last year.��

How did this happen? One school attributes English?s great success to the sheer weight of its merit. It?s a Germanic language, brought to Britain around the fifth century A. D. During the four centuries of French-speaking rule that followed Norman Conquest of 1066, the language morphed into something else entirely. French words were added wholesale, and most of the complications of Germanic grammar were shed while few of the complications of French were added. The result is a language with a huge vocabulary and a simple grammar that can express most things more efficiently than either of its parents. What?s more, English has remained ungoverned and open to change—foreign words, coinages, and grammatical

shifts—in a way that French, ruled by the purist Academic Francaise, has not. ��

So it?s a swell language, especially for business. But the rise of English over the past few centuries clearly owes at least as much to history and economics as to the language?s ability to economically express the concept win-win. What happened is that the competition— first Latin, then French, then, briefly, German—faded with the waning of the political, economic, and military fortunes of, respectively, the Catholic Church, France, and Germany. All along,

English was increasing in importance: Britain was the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, and London the world?s most important financial centre, which made English a key language for business. England?s colonies around the world also made it the language with the most global reach. And as that former colony the U. S. rose to the status of the world?s preeminent political, economic, military, and cultural power, English became the obvious second language to learn.�� In the 1990s more and more Europeans found themselves forced to use English. The last generation of business and government leaders who hadn?t studied English in school was leaving