Read about events in the business world over the l...

A warm, dusty wind was blowing over Marseilles from the south. Where it paused, it left a thin layer of fine Sahara sand; a bit of unwanted Africa, e-qually unwanted by France. Clive stood with the racing driver at the ships rail, watching the cars being loaded. One of his machines was already on board. "I hope this wind will have changed by the time we get there," the driver said, staring up at the cream-coloured sky. These conditions wouldnt be any good for racing. There was keen concern in his look. Clive smiled, though he was a bit puzzled. "Itll hardly trouble us," he said. Buenos Aires is about 7,000 miles away. Surprise came over the drivers face. "Is that so? We should leave it behind, then, shouldnt we?" They talked for a time about Argentina. Clive was going on business, the driver to take part in a motorrace. It was his first major event outside Europe. It was when he mentioned the date of the race December 30 and added as an afterthought, "Ive never raced in winter before", that Clive switched the conversation to the young man. He was a mechanical engineer by profession, fully trained, twenty-six years old. Motorracing was his great love, and he was currently driving for a French manufacturer. He spoke well enough, so Clive guessed that he had had a normal education. But something seemed to have gone wrong or was different these days. Here he was, going to Argentina, but without much idea where it was. When he spoke of a cousin of his, who worked in South Africa, "Is there any chance of this ship calling there?" Clive realised that the man had no map of the world in his mind. He had plans to race in South Africa and in Japan. To him, they were places on the planet, and probably that was all. Clive was interested because the man seemed cheerfully unconscious of any disadvantage. Worse he might have thought everyone was in the same boat. Dust blew into their faces. Clive said, "This wind from the Sahara..." but he didnt go on. Was there any point? So far as this young man was concerned, it might have been a wind from China. Were there many people, he wondered, who didnt know where they were going, or even where they were?

Why were they both at Marseilles that day? ______

A．Their ship for Buenos Aires left from Marseilles.

B．They were there to see a French motorrace.

C．Their ship had put into shelter from a dust storm.

D．They had gone there to fetch the racing cars.

TEXT D

The miserable fate of Enron’s employees will be a landmark in business history, one of those awful events that everyone agrees must never be allowed to happen again. This urge is understandable and noble: thousands have lost virtually all their retirement savings with the demise of Enron stock. But making sure it never happens again may not be possible, because the sudden impoverishment of those Enron workers represents something even larger than it seems. It’s the latest turn in the unwinding of one of the most audacious promise of the 20th century.

? The promise was assured economic security-even comfort- for essentially everyone in the developed world. With the explosion of wealth, that began in the 19th century it became possible to think about a possibility no one had dared to dream before. The fear at the center of daily living since caveman days- lack of food warmth, shelter- would at last lose its power to terrify. That remarkable promise became reality in many ways. Governments created welfare systems for anyone in need and separate programmes for the elderly (Social Security in the U.S.). Labour unions promised not only better pay for workers but also pensions for retirees. Giant corporations came into being and offered the possibility- in some cases the promise- of lifetime employment plus guaranteed pensions. The cumulative effect was a fundamental change in how millions of people approached life itself, a reversal of attitude that most rank as one of the largest in human history. For millennia the average person’s stance toward providing for himself had been. Ultimately I’m on my own. Now it became, ultimately I’ll be taken care of. The early hints that this promise might be broken on a large scale came in the 1980s. U.S. business had become uncompetitive globally and began restructuring massively, with huge Layoffs. The trend accelerated in the 1990s as the bastions of corporate welfare faced reality. IBM ended it’s no-layoff policy. AT&T fired thousands, many of whom found such a thing simply incomprehensible, and a few of whom killed themselves. The other supposed guarantors of our economic security were also in decline. Labour-union membership and power fell to their lowest levels in decades. President Clinton signed a historic bill scaling back welfare. Americans realized that Social Security won’t provide social security for any of us.

A less visible but equally significant trend a affected pensions. To make costs easier to control, companies moved away from defined benefit pension plans, which obligate them to pay out specified amounts years in the future, to define contribution plans, which specify only how much goes into the play today. The most common type of defined-contribution plan is the 401(k). the significance of the 401(k) is that it puts most of the responsibility for a person’s economic fate back on the employee. Within limits the employee must decide how much goes into the plan each year and how it gets invested- the two factors that will determine how much it’s worth when the employee retires. Which brings us back to Enron? Those billions of dollars in vaporized retirement savings went in employees’ 401(k) accounts. That is, the employees chose how much money to put into those accounts and then chose how to invest it. Enron matched a certain proportion of each employee’s 401(k) contribution with company stock, so everyone was going to end up with some Enron in his or her portfolio; but that could be regarded as a freebie, since nothing compels a company to match employee contributions at all. At least two special features complicate the Enron case. First, some shareholders charge top management with illegally covering up the company’s problems, prompting investors to hang on when they should have sold. Second, Enron’s 401(k) accounts were locked while the company changed plan administrators in October, when the stock was falling, so employees could not have closed their accounts if they wanted to.

But by far the largest cause of this human tragedy is that thousands of employees were heavily overweighed in Enron stock. Many had placed 100% of their 401(k) assets in the stock rather than in the 18 other investment options they were offered. Of course that wasn’t prudent, but it’s what some of them did.

The Enron employees’’ retirement disaster is part of the larger trend away from guaranteed economic security. That’s why preventing such a thing from ever happening again may be impossible. The huge attitudinal shift to I’ll-be-taken-care-of took at least a generation. The shift back may take just as long. It won’t be complete until a new generation of employees see assured economic comfort as a 20th- century quirk, and understand not just intellectually but in their bones that, like most people in most times and places, they’re on their own

26. Why does the author say at the beginning “The miserable fate of Enron’s employees will be a landmark in business history…”?

A. Because the company has gone bankrupt.

B. Because such events would never happen again.

C. Because many Enron workers lost their retirement savings.

D. Because it signifies a turning point in economic security.

The miserable fate of Enron's employees will be a landmark in business history, one of those awful events that everyone agrees must never be allowed to happen again. This urge is understandable and noble, thousands have lost virtually all their retirement savings with the demise of Enron stock. But making sure it never happens again may not be possible, because the sudden impoverishment of those Enron workers represents something even larger than it seems. It's the latest turn in the unwinding of one of the most audacious promise of the 20th century.

The promise was assured economic security--even comfort--for essentially everyone in the developed world. With the explosion of wealth, that began in the 19th century it became possible to think about a possibility no one had dared to dream before. The fear at the center of daily living since caveman days-- lack of food, warmth, shelter—would at last lose its power to terrify. That remarkable promise became reality in many ways. Governments created welfare systems for anyone in need and separate programmes for the elderly (Social Security in the U.S.). Labour unions promised not only better pay for workers but also pensions for retirees. Giant corporations came into being and offered the possibility—in some cases the promise—of lifetime employment plus guaranteed pensions? The cumulative effect was a fundamental change in how millions of people approached life itself, a reversal of attitude that most rank as one of the largest in human history. For millennia the average person's stance toward providing for himself had been. Ultimately I'm on my own. Now it became, ultimately I'll be taken care of.

The early hints that this promise might be broken on a large scale came in the 1980s. U.S. business had become uncompetitive globally and began restructuring massively, with huge layoffs. The trend accelerated in the 1990s as the bastions of corporate welfare faced reality. IBM ended it's no-layoff policy. AT＆T fired thousands, many of whom found such a thing simply incomprehensible, and a few of whom killed themselves. The other supposed guarantors of our economic security were also in decline. Labor union membership and power fell to their lowest levels in decades. President Clinton signed a historic bill scaling back welfare. Americans realized that Social Security won't provide social security for any of us.

A less visible but equally significant trend is affected pensions. To make costs easier to control, companies moved away from defined benefit pension plans, which obligate them to pay out specified amounts years in the future, to defined contribution plans, which specify only how much goes into the play today. The most common type of defined-contribution plan is the 401(k). The significance of the 401(k) is that it puts most of the responsibility for a person's economic fate back on the employee. Within limits the employee must decide how much goes into the plan each year and how it gets invested—the two factors that will determine how much it's worth when the employee retires.

Which brings us back to Enron? Those billions of dollars in vaporized retirement savings went in employees' 401(k) accounts. That is, the employees chose how much money to put into those accounts and then chose how to invest it. Enron matched a certain proportion of each employee's 401(k) contribution with company stock, so everyone was going to end up with some Enron in his or her portfolio; but that could be regarded as a freebie, since nothing compels a company to match employee contributions at all. At least two special features complicate the Enron case. First, some shareholders charge top management with illegally covering up the company's problems, prompting investors to hang on when they should have sold. Second, Enron's 401 (k) accounts were locked while the company changed plan administrators in October, when the stock was falling, so employees could n

A．Because the company has gone bankrupt.

B．Because such events would never happen again.

C．Because many Enron workers lost their retirement savings.

D．Because it signifies a turning point in economic security.

The miserable fate of Enron's employees will be a landmark in business history, one of those awful events that everyone agrees must never be allowed to happen again. This urge is understandable and noble: thousands have lost virtually all their retirement savings with the demise of Enron stock. But making sure it never happens again may not be possible, because the sudden impoverishment of those Enron workers represents something even larger than it seems. It's the latest mm in the unwinding of one of the most audacious promise of the 20th century.

The promise was assured economic security — even comfort — for essentially everyone in the developed world. With the explosion of wealth, that began in the 19th century it became possible to think about a possibility no one had dared to dream before. The fear at the center of daily living since caveman days — lack of food warmth, shelter -- would at last lose its power to terrify. That remarkable promise became reality in many ways. Governments created welfare systems for anyone in need and separate programmes for the elderly (Social Security in the U. S.). Labour unions promised not only better pay for workers but also pensions for retirees. Giant corporations came into being and offered the possibility — in some cases the premise — of lifetime employment plus guaranteed pensions. The cumulative effect was a fundamental change in how millions of people approached life itself, a reversal of attitude that most rank as one of the largest in human history. For millennia the average person's stance toward providing for himself had been. Ultimately I'm on my own. Now it became, ultimately I'll be taken care of.

The early hints that this promise might be broken on a large scale came in the 1980s. U.S. business had become uncompetitive globally and began restructuring massively, with huge Layoffs. The trend accelerated in the 1990s as the bastions of corporate welfare faced reality. IBM ended it's no-layoff policy. AT＆T fired thousands, many of whom found such a thing simply incomprehensible, and a few of whom killed themselves. The other supposed guarantors of our economic security were also in decline. Labour-union membership and power fell to their lowest levels in decades. President Clinton signed a historic bill scaling back welfare. Americans realized that Social Security won't provide social security for any of us.

A less visible but equally significant trend affected pensions. To make costs easier to control, companies moved away from defined benefit pension plans, which obligate them to pay out specified amounts years in the future, to defined contribution plans, which specify only how much goes into the play today. The most common type of defined-contribution plan is the 401 (k). The significance of The 401 (k) is that it puts most of the responsibility for a person's economic fate back on the employee. Within limits the employee must decide how much goes into the plan each year and how it gets invested— the two factors that will determine how much it's worth when the employee retires.

Which brings us back to Enron? Those billions of dollars in vaporized retirement savings went in employees' 401 (k) accounts. That is, the employees chose how much money to put into those accounts and then chose how to invest it. Enron matched a certain proportion of each employee's 401 (k) contribution with company stock, so everyone was going to end up with some Enron in his or her portfolio; but that could be regarded as a freebie, since nothing compels a company to match employee contributions at all. At least two special features complicate the Enron case. First, some shareholders charge top management with illegally covering up the company's problems, prompting investors to hang on when they should have sold. Second, Enron's 401 (k) accounts were locked while file company changed plan administrators in October, when the stock was fal

A．Because the company has gone bankrupt.

B．Because such events would never happen again,

C．Because many Enron workers lost their retirement savings.

D．Because it signifies a turning point in economic security.

?Read the text below about business on line．

?For each question(31-40)，write one word in CAPITAL LETTERS on your Answer Sheet．

Internet：A Cost．effective Way to Promote Business

The Internet is changing the way people shop and purchase goods．It has created a new market with great opportunities for people running a small home-business and gives them a big edge over the typical retail establishment．Before．if a customer wanted to buy a stereo，for example，they had to jump into their car，go to a (31) stores to see who has the best price，deal with the traffic and wait in long lines，then make the purchase．With the Internet， (32) is done right from the comfort of the consumer's home．They simply point＆click．There is (33) limit to the amount of business that a web merchant can bring in from on-liue sales and it can be done right from your home．You are not 1imited to state or national boundaries．The whole World is your customer base!Compared to say a local flower shop (34) is limited to only the customers within that general area．The World Wide Web has created an avenue for individuals to set up shop and generate high profits (35) the expensive overhead costs of a brick and mortar storefront．It has given an opportunity for small businesses to present the appearance of a large，well-established company，which puts (36) on a level playing field to compete (37) the larger companies．It is a low-maintenance low-cost form. of advertising your products and services．To get and set up with your own on-line store is extremely easy and cheap．In fact，it's the most cost-effective way to reach many thousands of buyers (38) the globe．Having a website is a must for (39) company doing business today to remain competitive and offer convenience to (40) customers．If you don't have a website，chances are your competitors will，and they will make the sale．

(32)

?Read the following article about real-time information 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.

Over the past several years, I have interviewed dozens of senior executives of Fortune 1,000 companies and asked two questions: "Is there information that would help you run your company far better if you had it in real time, and, if m, what is it?" Without exception, they answered yes to the first question, then ticked off the one to three items they wanted. Dave Dorman at AT&T said he wanted real-time customer transaction information, such as contract renewals and cancellations. Rick Wagoner at GM wanted real-time progress reports on new vehicle development. Others on his senior team wanted certain narrowly defined data on product quality and productivity. Dick Notebaert at Qwest wanted customer satisfaction numbers. The CEO of a well-known services business wished he had real- time transaction volume data on a limited group of his best customers, while the CEO of an events business wanted to see minute-by-minute tracking of how much show-floor space has been sold.

Oddly, though, very few of the executives I've spoken with receive the real-time information they say they could use (notable exceptions include some of the executives mentioned above, who now get their data). Why aren't they getting it? Clearly, these managers could direct corporate resources toward acquiring any data sets they wanted. The answer is that neither they, nor those who support them, are asking the fight questions. Although they agree, when prompted, that they need real-time information, in practice their reflex is to respond to business events after the fact rather than detect them as they unfold. Instead of asking, "How can we react faster?" they should be asking, "What real-time information will allow us to detect critical events the instant they occur?"

The danger in asking the latter question, of course, is that the executive may quickly drown in a torrent of data. The solution is to carefully identify the precise and minimum information that's required — only those data that would cause the executive to change a judgment or a course of action (what accountants would call "material" information). Examples might include real-time sales results, new customer sign ups, shifts in petroleum prices, or any information that, if instantly available, would keep a CEO from getting in trouble with the board. My research suggests, and interviews with CEOs confirm, that one needs to receive only a very small amount of information in real time to avoid trouble or exploit an opportunity.

Here's an example. In eBay's early days, the company often received complaints about offensive items that were put up for auction, especially those tied to tragic news events. Maynard Webb, eBay's chief operating officer, told me that, in response, a team was created to conduct real-time news monitoring and to warn executives when problem items appeared. This real-tree detection and rapid response strategy have paid off in many instances, most notably after the collapse of the World Trade Center and the shuffle Columbia disaster. Webb and other senior executives were notified immediately when offensive items appeared (World Trade Center rubble showed up just 20 minutes after the first tower fell), and they had them removed before eBay's 1range could be harmed.

If you're not tracking real-time information already, start. Don't assume that it's too granular to merit your attention, that me else in the company is already monitoring it, or that it simply doesn't exist. Identify what it is that you need. Then ask for it.

In the first paragraph, the writer mentions the companies to show that real-time information

A．concerns customers and business transactions.

B．is helpful to these companies.

C．means different things in different professions.

D．provides practical information.