1（）

A. rather than
B. let alone
C. much less
D. so as to

Travelers who fly frequently economy class.

Travelers who fly frequently business class.

Travelers who fly occasionally during holidays.

Travelers who fly economy class once in a while.

Top managers often find it very difficult to manage conflict. They know that conflict over issues is natural and even necessary. Reasonable people，making decisions under conditions of uncertainty，are likely to have honest disagreements over the best path for their company’s future. Management teams whose members challenge one another’s thinking develop a more complete understanding of the choices, cerate a richer range of options. Ultimately they are able to make the kinds of effective decisions necessary in today’s competitive environments. But, unfortunately, healthy conflict can quickly turn unproductive. A comment meant as a substantive remark can be interpreted as a personal attack. (8) Personalities frequently become closely connected with issues. Because most executives are proud of their ability to make rational decisions，they find it difficult even to acknowledge—let alone manage—this emotional，irrational dimension of their behavior.

The challenge is familiar to anyone who has ever been part of a management team. (9) The managers should be encouraged to argue without destroying their ability to work as a team.

In a study，in 4 of the 12 companies，there was little or no substantive disagreement over major issues and therefore little conflict to observe. But the other 8 companies experienced considerable conflict. In 4 of them，the top-management teams handled conflict in a way that avoided interpersonal hostility or discord. (10) They described the way they work as a team as‘open’，‘fun’，and ‘productive’. The executives vigorously debated the issues，but they wasted little time on carefully considering and posturing. As one put it, ’I really don’t have time. ’Another said, ’We don’t gloss over the issues：we hit them straight on. But we’re not political, ’ Still another observed of her company’s management team, ’We scream a lot，then laugh，and then resolve the issue. ’

The other four companies in which issues were contested were less successful at avoiding interpersonal conflict. Their top teams were plagued by intense hostility. (11) When executives described their colleagues to us，they used words such as‘manipulative’, ‘secretive’.‘burned out’，and‘political’. The teams with minimal interpersonal conflict were able to separate substantive issues from those based on personalities. (12) How did they do that After analyzing the observations of the teams’ behavior, the experts found that their companies used the same tactics for managing interpersonal conflict. For instance，team members worked with more, rather than less, information and debated on the basis of facts.

账簿数据

本表数据

表间数据

手工输入

It seems impossible to have an honest conversation about global warming. I say this after diligently perusing the British government’s huge report released last week by Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank and now a high civil servant. The report is a masterpiece of misleading public relations. It foresees dire consequences if global warming isn’t curbed: a worldwide depression and flooding of many coastal cities. Meanwhile, the costs of minimizing these awful outcomes are small: only 1 percent of world economic output in 2050.

No sane person could fail to conclude that we should conquer global warming instantly, if not sooner. Who could disagree Well, me. Stem’s headlined conclusions are intellectual fictions. They’re essentially fabrications to justify an aggressive anti-global-warming agenda. The danger of that is that we’d end up with the worst of both worlds: a program that harms the economy without much cutting of greenhouse gases.

Let me throw some messy realities onto Stern’s tidy picture. In the global-warming debate, there’s a big gap between public rhetoric and public behavior. Greenhouse emissions continue to rise despite many earnest pledges to control them. Just last week, the United Nations reported that of the 41 countries it monitors (not including most developing nations), 34 had increased greenhouse emissions from 2000 to 2004. These include most countries committed to reducing emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.

Why is this In rich democracies, policies that might curb greenhouse gases require politicians and the public to act in exceptionally "enlightened" ways. They have to accept "pain" now for benefits that won’t materialize for decades, probably after they’re dead. And even if rich countries cut emissions, it won’t make much difference unless poor countries do likewise and so far, they’ve refused because that might jeopardize their economic growth and poverty-reduction efforts.

The notion that there’s only a modest tension between suppressing greenhouse gases and sustaining economic growth is highly dubious. Stern arrives at his trivial costs—that 1 percent of world GDP in 2050—by essentially assuming them. His estimates presume that, with proper policies, technological improvements will automatically reconcile declining emissions with adequate economic growth. This is a heroic leap. To check warming, Stern wants annual emissions 25 percent below current levels by 2050. The IEA projects that economic growth by 2050 would more than double emissions. At present, we can’t bridge that gap.

The other great distortion in Stern’s report involves global warming’s effects. No one knows what these might be, because we don’t know how much warming might occur, when, where, or how easily people might adapt. Stern’s horrific specter distills many of the most terrifying guesses, including some imagined for the 22nd century, and implies they’re imminent. The idea is to scare people while reassuring them that policies to avert calamity, if started now, would be fairly easy and inexpensive.

原版或盗版

原版

原版或部分原版

自行开发

A life insurance agent.

Nobody except yourself.

Your family members.

Your lawyer.

正确

错误

Travelers who fly frequently economy class.

Travelers who fly frequently business class.

Travelers who fly occasionally during holidays.

Travelers who fly economy class once in a while.

Top managers often find it very difficult to manage conflict. They know that conflict over issues is natural and even necessary. Reasonable people，making decisions under conditions of uncertainty，are likely to have honest disagreements over the best path for their company’s future. Management teams whose members challenge one another’s thinking develop a more complete understanding of the choices, cerate a richer range of options. Ultimately they are able to make the kinds of effective decisions necessary in today’s competitive environments. But, unfortunately, healthy conflict can quickly turn unproductive. A comment meant as a substantive remark can be interpreted as a personal attack. (8) Personalities frequently become closely connected with issues. Because most executives are proud of their ability to make rational decisions，they find it difficult even to acknowledge—let alone manage—this emotional，irrational dimension of their behavior.

The challenge is familiar to anyone who has ever been part of a management team. (9) The managers should be encouraged to argue without destroying their ability to work as a team.

In a study，in 4 of the 12 companies，there was little or no substantive disagreement over major issues and therefore little conflict to observe. But the other 8 companies experienced considerable conflict. In 4 of them，the top-management teams handled conflict in a way that avoided interpersonal hostility or discord. (10) They described the way they work as a team as‘open’，‘fun’，and ‘productive’. The executives vigorously debated the issues，but they wasted little time on carefully considering and posturing. As one put it, ’I really don’t have time. ’Another said, ’We don’t gloss over the issues：we hit them straight on. But we’re not political, ’ Still another observed of her company’s management team, ’We scream a lot，then laugh，and then resolve the issue. ’

The other four companies in which issues were contested were less successful at avoiding interpersonal conflict. Their top teams were plagued by intense hostility. (11) When executives described their colleagues to us，they used words such as‘manipulative’, ‘secretive’.‘burned out’，and‘political’. The teams with minimal interpersonal conflict were able to separate substantive issues from those based on personalities. (12) How did they do that After analyzing the observations of the teams’ behavior, the experts found that their companies used the same tactics for managing interpersonal conflict. For instance，team members worked with more, rather than less, information and debated on the basis of facts.

账簿数据

本表数据

表间数据

手工输入

It seems impossible to have an honest conversation about global warming. I say this after diligently perusing the British government’s huge report released last week by Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank and now a high civil servant. The report is a masterpiece of misleading public relations. It foresees dire consequences if global warming isn’t curbed: a worldwide depression and flooding of many coastal cities. Meanwhile, the costs of minimizing these awful outcomes are small: only 1 percent of world economic output in 2050.

No sane person could fail to conclude that we should conquer global warming instantly, if not sooner. Who could disagree Well, me. Stem’s headlined conclusions are intellectual fictions. They’re essentially fabrications to justify an aggressive anti-global-warming agenda. The danger of that is that we’d end up with the worst of both worlds: a program that harms the economy without much cutting of greenhouse gases.

Let me throw some messy realities onto Stern’s tidy picture. In the global-warming debate, there’s a big gap between public rhetoric and public behavior. Greenhouse emissions continue to rise despite many earnest pledges to control them. Just last week, the United Nations reported that of the 41 countries it monitors (not including most developing nations), 34 had increased greenhouse emissions from 2000 to 2004. These include most countries committed to reducing emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.

Why is this In rich democracies, policies that might curb greenhouse gases require politicians and the public to act in exceptionally "enlightened" ways. They have to accept "pain" now for benefits that won’t materialize for decades, probably after they’re dead. And even if rich countries cut emissions, it won’t make much difference unless poor countries do likewise and so far, they’ve refused because that might jeopardize their economic growth and poverty-reduction efforts.

The notion that there’s only a modest tension between suppressing greenhouse gases and sustaining economic growth is highly dubious. Stern arrives at his trivial costs—that 1 percent of world GDP in 2050—by essentially assuming them. His estimates presume that, with proper policies, technological improvements will automatically reconcile declining emissions with adequate economic growth. This is a heroic leap. To check warming, Stern wants annual emissions 25 percent below current levels by 2050. The IEA projects that economic growth by 2050 would more than double emissions. At present, we can’t bridge that gap.

The other great distortion in Stern’s report involves global warming’s effects. No one knows what these might be, because we don’t know how much warming might occur, when, where, or how easily people might adapt. Stern’s horrific specter distills many of the most terrifying guesses, including some imagined for the 22nd century, and implies they’re imminent. The idea is to scare people while reassuring them that policies to avert calamity, if started now, would be fairly easy and inexpensive.

原版或盗版

原版

原版或部分原版

自行开发

A life insurance agent.

Nobody except yourself.

Your family members.

Your lawyer.

正确

错误