The board is somehow suspicious about his ability to shift ___ managing a bank to managing a steel plant since he didn’t have this experience before.

The author says "the rhetoric is softening" to show that

A．the school board changed their attitude.

B．home-schoolers no longer hated schools.

C．the two sides began to cooperate.

D．the language used here is changing.

根据下面内容，回答题

Evaluating the Performance of the Board

Few employees escape the annual or twice-yearly performance review．（0） ...G ... The answer is not a great number．And the smaller the company， the fewer checks there are on how well the directors are doing．Some of the largest companies formally assess the performance of their board， but very few new or growing companies have managed to get round to establishing any such procedure.

Many business experts believe， however， that it is important for all companies to review

the performance of the board．（8）....．Another reason is that the board itself needs information on how well it is doing， just as much as other employees do．For the chief executive， appraisal of some sort is absolutely essential for his or her own sake and for the good of the company．Indeed， many of those who have reached this level remark on how lonely the job of chief executive is and how few opportunities they get to discuss issues relating to it.

There is some evidence to show that once smaller companies put a board appraisal process in place， they find this process relatively easy to operate．（9）....． Their counterparts in larger organizations， however， are often afraid that appraisals could be a challenge to their status.

So， how should companies assess their board? （10）.....At a very basic level， this could simply mean getting all the directors to write down what they have achieved and how they can improve on it．At the other end of the scale is the full "360-degree" appraisal．Here， each director is appraised in a systematic manner by a combination of the chairman and fellow directors.

In the largest companies there are many methods for assessing the board．A number of such companies have self-assessment schemes．The chairman may meet each board member individually to ask how things are going， in a fairly informal way．The whole board might also meet to talk about its progress in open session．（11）.....These might ask for people"s opinions on the board"s main tasks or on how well the committees are working.

Research indicates there has been some improvement in the way the appraisal of board members is conducted．（12）......The chairman will have been involved directly or indirectly in the appraisal of all members of the board．Whose job is it， then， to appraise the chairman?

A.It is often the case that the directors of such companies are even happy to receive criticism， as this can prevent them from making basic mistakes.

B.The rest of the workforce sees it as unfair if the directors are the only members of thecompany to escape appraisal.

C.These are encouraging as they put a limit on the power of the chairman to assess fellow directors.

D.Alternatively， questionnaires might be distributed to directors， forming the basis for future discussion.

E.One issue remains， however， when all the others have been dealt with．

F.It is generally agreed that it is the chairman"s responsibility to ensure the regular appraisal of each member of the board.

G.However， one wonders how many companies have in place a formal appraisal process for their board of directors.

（8）应选 查看材料

?Read the following article about merge and the questions on the opposite page.

?For each question 15-20, mark one letter (A, B, C or D ) on your Answer Sheet for the answer you choose.

A school of behavioral economists has long argued that when it comes to money, people are incapable of acting in their own best interest -- that decisions result from impulse and overconfidence as much as from reason. Smart folks, in other words, are just as likely to soon part with their money as all those fools.

The truly bad news is that smart companies are just as prone to make terrible decisions for the same reason. Take one of the biggest business decisions of all— merger. Research consistently shows that most mergers fail in every sense of the word, from falling stock prices to lower profitability after the merger. Yet, even with suffering capital markets, a recent Hewitt Associates study found that more than half of the 70 senior executives and board members surveyed planned to step up merger activity during the next three years.

Why? Call it executive hubris. CEOs are not different from the rest of us in that they fall prey to the self-enhancement bias: we all like to think we are intelligent and efficacious. So we overestimate our abilities. That's why studies show that significantly more than half of all people believe they are above average -- in negotiating ability, even in income, This overly optimistic view is, of course, worse for CEOs- afar all, they generally are way above average. Btu the result is the same: bad decisions. One study, by business school professors Matthew Hayward and Donald Hambrick, showed that the greater the hubris of the chief executive, the more a company tends to overpay for acquisitions.

The aphorism "Pride goeth before a fall" seems to hold true in business too. When executives are confronted with the appalling statistics, their first response goes something like this: "That may happen to other companies, but not ours. This acquisition will be more successful. We have learned."

The next CEO challenge is persuading a possibly recalcitrant board of directors to let you pursue your urge to merge. Hubris, again, returns to center stage. You paint a picture of doom and gloom that will result if you don't merge. Take a look at one of the rationales given for the merger of Hewlett-Packard and Compaq, two companies with poor operating track records. The argument was that PCs were becoming a commodity industry, consolidation was inevitable, and if HP didn't do the consolidating, it would soon be one of the consolidated. Here's another variant of the same rationale: If you don't buy the target company, your competitor will -- and you'll lose out. This gambit uses the influence strategy of scarcity -- we want what we can't have, and we find particularly desirable anything that we may lose to someone else.

Here's how to avoid hubris-fueled merger mania. First, follow the adage from medicine: Forgive and remember. Go back and evaluate past merger decisions, admit when you were wrong, figure out why, and learn from it.

Second, beware of too much agreement in the board room. When Alfred Sloan ran General Motors, if he couldn't find opposition to a decision, he'd postpone it. He interpreted a lack of dissent as a lack of analysis. Find, even encourage, people to disagree with you, so that all sides of the decision are examined. Mostly, we like those who agree with us. But as one of my colleagues likes to point out, if two people agree all the time, one of them is redundant.

The urge to merge is still like an addiction in many companies: Doing deals is much more fun and interesting than fixing fundamental problems. So, as in dealing with any other addiction or temptation, maybe it is best to just say no.

What is the argument in the first paragraph about earning money?

A．People are likely to make decisions reasonably.

B．Behavioral economists are likely to act with overconfidence.

C．Clever people are capable to earn a great fortune.

D．Intelligent people tend to behave the same with the foolish one.

There may be an ____ for you to see the chairman of the board tomorrow.

A.ability

B.future

C.possibility

D.opportunity