Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
PART 3 Reading Comprehension
(Paragraph A –I) On September 13, The New York Times published an article by Milton
Friedman castigating any managers of businesses who were “spending someone else’s money
for a general social interest” – in other words, requiring customers to pay more, employees to
be paid less, or owners to accept smaller profits so that the firm could exhibit some amount of
social responsibility beyond the requirements of the law. Already in his 1962 book Capitalism
and Freedom Freidman had declared that, “there is one and only one social responsibility of
business – to use its resources to engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as
it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition
without deception or fraud.” Choices about whether and how to use money to remedy social
problems should be left to individuals, he argued, who would be in better position to provide it
if they were not being in effect taxed by corporate managers who thought they had better
ideas for how to spend it.
(Paragraph A-II) The article shocked the sensibilities of many who worried about rising
corporate power in the world, but for many executives struggling to chart courses through the
chaos of newly globalized and deregulated markets, it offered an irresistible clarity: one need
only focus on owner’s interests. In 1976, Professors Meckling and Jenses put a finer point on
things with their economic rationale for maximizing shareholder value. Ronald Reagan and
Margaret Thatcher gave the idea political cover. Very quickly, shareholder value became the
gospel of capitalism.
(Paragraph A-III) The tight focus on generating returns drove many gains. It hurried along the
formation of global supply chains with ever greater efficiency and economies of scale. As more
firms became multinationals, fewer showed loyalty to particular communities or any hesitation
to migrate their operations to wherever costs were lowest. Employees were viewed more as
fungible inputs to operation, and customers viewed more as targets within more or less
lucrative segments.
(Paragprah A-IV) Yet it also began to evidence that, even if the goal was to serve the interests of
a single stockholder, the pursuit could not be so single-minded. Incentives to maximize
shareholder value pushed managers toward decisions that paid off in the short term but were
devastating to the long-term viability of firms. As I’ve explored elsewhere, pervasive short-
termism hampered the United States’ capacity to compete in international markets;
encouraged a massive trend of offshoring that destroyed major segments of the US economy;
generated “bad profits” that undermined customer loyalty, “financialized” the economy making
it vulnerable to increasingly severe financial crashes; undermined economic recoveries; and
drastically reduced rates of return on assets and on invested capital of US firms.
(Paragraph A-V) These problems hardly arose overnight; they began early. However, it was after
the advent of the Internet that the challenges to the shareholder value maximization became
forceful. This is because the Internet …
• Shifted power in the marketplace from seller to buyer. Customers, who had, access to
reliable information about the available choices and a capacity to interact with other
customers, were suddenly in charge.
• Raised customers’ expectations. As “better, cheaper, faster, smaller, more convenient,
and more personalized” became the new norm, the ability to innovate with committed
employees and agile processes became critical.
• Shredded vertical supply chains. Customers could buy a wider array of stuff online
cheaper, and often quicker than in a physical store. First books and music, then almost
anything.
• Spawned vast new horizontal value chains, in which millions of people began creating
their own virtual meeting places and marketplaces with their own lateral economies of
scale. First computer code, then ideas, then music, photos, and videos-and finally,
physical things.
• Enabled firms to create huge ecosystem of suppliers and customers that could achieve
enormous scale without the sclerosis of big hierarchical bureaucracy.
(Paragraph A-VI) As a result a new era is emerging. Harking back to Peter Drucker’s insistence in
1973 that “there is only one valid definition of business purpose to create a customer, “Roger
Martin has declared that we are finally entering “the age of customer capitalism.” If firms serve
customers well, Martin asserts, benefits for shareholders and the community follow. Customers
as stakeholders because the new center of the capitalist universe and its new gospel.
(Paragraph A-VII) The shift in goal entails a transformation in management practices from those
of hierarchical bureaucracy, including a shift from controlling individuals to enabling teams,
networks, and ecosystems; a shift in the way work is coordinated from rules, plans and reports
to agile processes and dynamic linking, a shift from the values of efficiency, and predictability to
those of continuous improvement and transparency, and a shift from one-way, top-down
communications to interactive conversations. These shifts are not just a grab-bag of
unconnected management gadgets. They continue a coherent constellation of leadership and
management practices described by more than a score of books.
(Paragraph A-VIII) The confusing reality of the moment, however, is that there are least) two
different systems, operating simultaneously, at different speeds and on different trajectories.
(Paragraph A-IX) One- the Traditional Economy – is the economy that we inherited from the
20th Century. It’s a world of command and control, focused on making money through
economies of scale and comprising big hierarchical bureaucracies that push out products and
services and get customers to buy them with sales of campaigns and advertising. This is still the
larger of the two economies. It’s been in a steady decline for a number of decades. It doesn’t
generate net new jobs. It’s not very agile. It’s becoming steadily more efficient. But it’s not
good at innovation. It’s less and less able to capture the gains of its efficiencies. It’s still a big
part of what’s going on in the world. But it doesn’t have much of a future.
(Paragraph A-X) The other economy – the Creative Economy – is an economy of continuous
innovation and transformation. This is the economy of firms and entrepreneurs that are
delivering to customers what they are coming to expect, namely, “better, faster, cheaper,
smaller, higher, more convenient, and more personalized.” The Creative Economy is still
relatively small but it is growing rapidly and, when implemented well, is highly profitable. It is
the economy of the future. It doesn’t have to be invented it’s already under way. Its practices
represent a paradigm shift in the strict sense laid down by Thomas Kuhn: it’s a different way of
thinking, speaking, and acting in the world.
(Paragraph A-XI) The shift from the Traditional Economy to the Creative Economy isn’t just a
technical wrangle about economies or management theory. It’s a shift in what society demands
of the managers of its most powerful institutions; from narrow definitions of their owners and
decisions that serve their short-term interests, to broad acceptance of the responsibility that
comes with power and leadership concerned with what is best for society. In the shift, we are
learning than an argument about the proper activities of managers can be logical, can be
strongly argued, can influence decades of practice in the world’s largest corporations – and can
still be plain, flat, dead wrong.
1. With the advent of the Internet, which of the following receded into the background?
2. The phrase “massive trend of offshoring that destroyed major segments of the US economy”
(Paragraph A-IV, Lines 34-35) implies that the main purpose of OFFSHORING is to:
3. If “employees were viewed more as FUNGIBLE inputs to operations” (Paragraph A-III, Line
26), then they were ________________________.
A. Replaceable
B. Dehumanized
C. Costly
D. Serviceable
4. According to the article, what is the challenge facing today’s business leader/manager?
6. In the transition from the traditional to the creative economy, the internet may be
considered a __________ of change.
A. Cause
B. Catalyst
C. Method
D. Route
(Par. B-I) Whether you’re the owner of the Dallas Cowboys or captain of the playground dodge
ball team, the goal in picking players is the same: Get the top talent. Hearts have been broken,
allegiances tested, and budgets busted as teams contend for the best athletes. The motivation
for recruiting peak performers is obvious – exceptional players are the key to team success –
and this belief is shared not only by coaches and sports fans, but also by corporations,
investors, and even whole industries. Everyone wants a team of stars.
(Par. B-II) While there is no denying exceptional players like Emmitt Smith can put points on the
board and enhance team success, new research by Roderick Swaab and colleagues suggests
there is a limit to the benefit top talents bring to a team. Swaab and colleagues compared the
amount of individual talent on teams with the teams’ success, and they find striking examples
of more talent hurting the team.
(Par. B-III) The researches look at three sports: basketball, soccer, and baseball. In each sport,
they calculated both the percentage of top talent on each team and the teams’ success over
several years. For example, they identified top NBA talent using each player’s Estimated Wins
Added (EWA), a statistic commonly employed to capture a player’s overall contribution to his
team, along with selection for the All-star tournament. Once the researches determined who
the elite players were, they calculated top-talent percentage at the team level by dividing the
number of star players on the team by the total number of players on that team. Finally, team
performance was measured by the team’s win-loss record over 10 years.
(Par. B-IV) For both basketball and soccer, they found that top talent did in fact predict team
success, but only up to a point. Furthermore, there was not simply a point of diminishing
returns with respect to top talent; there was in fact a cost. Basketball and soccer teams with
the greatest proportion of elite athletes performed worse than those with more moderate
proportions of top level players.
(Par, B-V) Why is too much talent a bad thing? Think teamwork. In many endeavors success
requires collaborative, cooperative work towards a goal that is beyond the capability of any one
individual…. When a team roster is flooded with individual talent, pursuit of personal star status
may prevent the attainment of team goals. The basketball player chasing a point record, for
example, may cost the team by taking risky shots instead
(Par. B-VI) Two related findings by Swaab and colleagues indicate that the there is in fact trade-
off between top talent and teamwork. First, Swabb and colleagues found that the percentage
of top talent on a team affects intra-team coordination. For the basketball study, teams with
the highest levels of top performers had fewer assists and defensive rebounds, and lowest field-
goal percentages. These failures in strategic, collaborative play undermined the team’s
effectiveness. The second revealing finding is that extreme levels of top talent did not have the
same negative effect in basketball, which experts have argued involves much less
interdependent play. In the basketball study, increasing numbers of stars on a team never
hindered overall performance. Together these findings suggest that high levels of top talent will
be harmful in arenas that require coordinated, strategic efforts as the quest for the spotlight
may trump the teamwork needed to get the job done.
(Par. B- VII) The lessons here extend beyond the ball field to any group or endeavor that must
balance competitive and collaborative efforts, including corporate teams, financial research
groups, and brainstorming exercises. Indeed, the impact of too many much talent is even
evident in other animals. When hen colonies have too many dominant high-producing chickens,
conflict and hen mortality rise while egg production drops. So before breaking the bank to
recruit superstars, team owners and industry experts might want to consider whether the goal
they are trying to achieve relies on individual talent alone, or a cooperative synergy from the
team. If the latter, it would be wise to rein in the talent and focus on teamwork.
10. Based on the results of the study, which of the following is TRUE?
A. Top talents have more opportunity to shine in baseball than in basketball or soccer
B. Top talents in baseball do not hinder overall performances because they show more
teamwork
C. Baseball requires less coordinated, strategic play than basketball or soccer
D. Basketball and soccer teams with the highest percentage of top talent were
outperformed by teams with the lowest percentage of top talent.
11. What is the commonly-held belief that Swaab and his colleagues wanted to investigate?
12. Which of the following sentences form the article BEST captures its overall message.
13. Learning from the results of the study, a human resource professional tasked with putting
together a team may recruit _________________.
14. Based on the article, hiring on the basis of talent or skill primarily may be a good idea when
one is looking for a
A. Restaurant staff
B. Restaurant waitstaff
C. Pre-school teacher
D. Newspaper columnist
15. What was most likely the aim of Swaab and his colleagues for using the METHODOLOGY
they chose to answer their research question?
16. Which of the following questions is NOT a logic offshoot of the results of the study cited in
the article?
18. A basketball coach learning from the study findings will probably do all of the following
EXCEPT _________________
(Par. D-I) The technology writer Kevin Kelly…. argues that the age of artificial intelligence is
finally at hand.
(Par. D-II) He writes that the smart machines of the future won’t be humanlike geniuses like
HAL 9000 in the movie “2001: A Space Odyssey.” They will be more modest machines that will
drive your car, translate foreign languages, organize your photos, recommend entertainment
options and maybe diagnose your illness. “Everything that we formerly electrified we will now
cognitize.” Kelly writes. Even more than today, we’ll lead our lives enmeshed with machines
that do some of our thinking tasks for us.
(Par. D-III) This artificial intelligence breakthrough, he argues is being driven by cheap parallel
computation technologies, big data collection and better algorithms. The upshot is clear, “The
business plans of the next 10,000 start-ups are easy to forecast. Take X and add A.I.”
(Par. D-IV) Two big implications flow from this. The first is sociological. If knowledge is power
we’re about to see an even greater concentration of power.
(Par. D-V) The Internet is already heralding a new era of centralization. As Astra Taylor points
out in her book, “The People’s Platform,” in 2001, the top 10 websites accounted for 31 percent
of all U.S. page views, but by 2010, they accounted for 75 percent of them. Gigantic companies
like Google swallow up the smaller ones. The Internet has created a long tail, but almost all the
revenue and power is among the small elite at the head.
(Par. D-VI) Advances in artificial intelligence will accelerate this centralizing trend. That’s
because A.I. companies will be able to reap the rewards of network effects. The bigger their
network and the more data they collect, the more effective and attractive they become.
(Par. D-VII) As Kelly puts, “Once a company enters this virtuous cycle, it tends to grow so big, so
fast, that it overwhelms any upstart competitors. As a result our A.I. future is likely to be ruled
by an oligarchy of two or three large, general-purpose cloud-based commercial intelligences.”
(Par. D-VIII) To put it more menacingly, engineers at a few gigantic companies will have vast-
though-hidden power to shape how data are collected and framed, to harvest huge amounts of
information, to build the frameworks through which the rest of us make decisions and to steer
our choices. If you think this power will be used for entirely benign ends, then you have not
read enough history.
(Par. D-IX) The second implication is philosophical. A.I. will redefine what it means to be human.
Our identity as humans is shaped by what machines and other animals can’t do. For the last few
centuries, reason was seen as the ultimate human faculty. But now machines are better at
many of the tasks we associate with thinking – like playing chess, winning at Jeopardy, and
doing math.
(Par. D-X) On the other hand, machines cannot beat us at things we do without conscious
thinking: developing tastes and affection, mimicking each other and building emotional
attachments, experiencing imaginative breakthroughs, forming moral sentiments.
(Par. D-XI) In the age of smart machines, we’re not human because we have big brains. We’re
humans because we have social skills, emotional capacities and moral intuitions. I could paint
two divergent A.I. futures, one deeply humanistic, and one soullessly utilitarian.
(Par. D-XII) In the humanistic one, machines liberate us from mental drudgery so we can focus
on higher and happier things. In this future, differences in innate I.Q. are less important.
Everybody has Google on their phones so having a great memory or the ability to calculate with
big machines doesn’t help as much.
(Par. D-XIII) In this future, there is increasing emphasis on personal and moral faculties being
likeable, industrious, trustworthy and affectionate. People are evaluated more on these traits,
which supplement machine thinking, and not the rote ones that duplicate it.
(Par. D-XIV) In the cold, utilitarian future on the other hand, people become less idiosyncratic. If
the choice architecture behind many decisions is based on big data from vast crowds,
everybody follows the prompts and chooses to be like each other. The machine prompts us to
consume what is popular, the things that are easy and mentally undemanding.
19. To COGNITIZE a machine (Paragraph D-II, Line 7-8: “Everything that we formerly electrified
we will now cognitize”) means making it
20. The term IDIOSYNCRATIC in the sentence (Paragraph D-XIV, Lines 68-69): “In the cold,
utilitarian future, on the other hand, people become less
A. Intelligent
B. Distinctive
C. Freewheeling
D. Demanding
21. According to the article, which of the following is giving artificial intelligence the boost it
needs to make it part of our lives in the near future?
A. Cheap parallel computer technologies, big data collection and better algorithms
B. Greater concentration of power wielded by a few gigantic Internet companies
C. A shift in the understanding of what it means to be human
D. The need to free human from time-consuming but unchallenging tasks
A. The concentration of knowledge power in the hands of a few could lead to abuse
B. Past abuses of the most powerful must not be condoned
C. It is dangerous to defer to the tech elite to make important decisions
D. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Lord Acton)
23. According to the author, in the best possible vision of the future, humans would be living in
a world which ___________________
24. The ideas discussed by the author in Paragraphs XII, XIII, and XIV may be best described as
__________________
A. Visionary
B. Fantastical
C. Factual
D. Exploratory
25. Which TWO paragraphs best captures the value the author assigns to freedom of choice?
26. Based on the redefinition of being human that the author describes, which of the following
may become the LEAST uniquely human characteristic in the future?
A. Feeling animosity towards a work colleague
B. Following an argument to its logical conclusion
C. Sensing danger in an unfamiliar situation
D. Having a flash of insight in the middle of a sales meeting
27. Based on the redefinition of being human that the author describes, what could be
reasonably predicted about future job prospects for our humans?
28. What is the assumption underlying the author’s concern (Paragraphs IV-VIII) about the
CENTRALIZED TREND accompanying the growth of the Internet and artificial intelligence?
A. Man is essentially good and, if given power and resources, would use these for noble
ends.
B. In the pursuit of market dominance, most businesses generally abide by consumer and
trade laws
C. Personal information provided on the Internet should not be used by companies
without the individual’s consent
D. Consumers should be able to freely choose from a wide array of product offerings from
various providers.
29. Which of the following is the most accurate reading of the ideas presented in the article?
A. A humanistic future may be the cause of a redefinition of being human, and a utilitarian
future the cause of centralization of knowledge power.
B. A humanistic future may be the cause of a redefinition of being human, and a utilitarian
future the effect of centralization of knowledge power
C. A humanistic future may be the product of a human, and a utilitarian future the effect of
centralization of knowledge power
D. A humanistic future may be the product of a redefinition of being human, and a
utilitarian future the cause of centralization of knowledge power.
30. To be ENMESHED (Paragraph D-II, Line 8-9: “Even more than today, we’ll lead our lives
enmeshed with machines that do some of our thinking tasks for us.“) means to _____________
A. Be replaced by
B. Be fascinated by
C. Be controlled by
D. Interact closely with
(Par. E-I) Globalization has made the planet more equal. As communication gets cheaper and
transport gets faster developing countries have closed the gap with their rich-world
counterparts. But within developing economies, the story is less rosy; inequality has worsened.
The Gini index is one measure of inequality, based on a score between zero and one. A Gini
index of one means a country’s entire income goes to one person; a score of zero means the
spoils are equally divided. Sub-Saharan Africa saw its Gini index rise by 9% between 1993 and
2008. China’s score soared by 34% over twenty years. Only in a few places has it fallen. Does
globalization have anything to do with it?
(Par. E-II) Usually, economists say no. Basic theory predicts that inequality falls when
developing countries enter global markets. The theory of comparative advantage is found in
every introductory textbook. It says that poor countries produce goods requiring large amounts
of unskilled labour. Rich countries focus on things requiring skilled workers. Thailand is a big
rice exporter, for example, while America is the world’s largest exporter of financial services. As
global trade increases, the theory says unskilled workers in poor countries are high in demand;
skilled workers in those same countries are less coveted. With more employers clamoring for
their services unskilled workers in developing countries get wage boosts, whereas their skilled
counterparts don’t. The result is that inequality falls.
(Par. E-III) But the high inequality seen today in poor countries is prompting new theories. One
emphasizes outsourcing – when rich countries shift parts of the production process to poor
countries. Contrary to popular belief, multinationals in poor countries often employ skilled
workers and pay high wages. One study showed that workers in foreign-owned and
subcontracting clothing and footwear factories in Vietnam rank in the top 20% of the country’s
population by household expenditure. A report from the OECD found that average wages paid
by foreign multinationals are 40% higher than wages paid by local firms. What is more, those
skilled workers often get to work with managers from rich countries, or might have to meet the
deadlines of an efficient rich-world company. That may boost their productivity. Higher
productivity means they can demand even higher wages. By contrast, unskilled workers, or
poor ones in rural areas, tend not to have such opportunities. Their productivity does not rise.
For these reasons globalization can boost the wages of skilled workers, while crimping those of
the unskilled. The result is that inequality rises.
(Par. E-IV) Other economic theories try to explain why inequality in developing countries has
reached such heights. A Nobel laureate, Simon Kuznets, argued that growing inequality was
inevitable in the early stages of development. He reckoned that those who had a little bit of
money to begin with could see big gains from investment, and could benefit from growth,
whereas those with nothing would stay rooted in poverty. Only with economic development
and demands from redistribution would inequality fall. Indeed, recent evidence suggests that
the growth in developing-country inequality may now have slowed, which will prompt new
questions for economists. But as things stand, globalization may struggle to promote equality
within the world’s poorest countries.
31. Using Thailand and America as examples in Paragraph E-II, the theory of comparative
advantage predicts that as global trade increases,
A. Thailand’s skilled workers would not be able to compete with America’s skilled workers
B. There would be a narrowing of the gap in incomes of skilled and unskilled workers in
Thailand
C. Unskilled workers in both America and Thailand would be in high demand
D. The Gini index of Thailand would fall, while the Gini index of America would rise
32. If Country A has a Gini index of .60 and Country B has a Gini index of .30, income
then__________________.
33. The data that China’s Gini score soared by 34% over twenty years (Paragraph E-I, Lines 7-8 is
___________________.
A. Inconsistent with the theory that inequality falls when developing countries enter global
markets
B. Consistent with the theory that unskilled workers in poor countries are high in demand
C. Inconsistent with the view that growing inequality was inevitable in the early stages of
development
D. Consistent with the observation that developing countries have closed the gap with
their rich-world counterparts
34. Theoretically, which of the following would have the LOWEST Gini index?
A. By presenting three theories showing the positive and negative impact of globalization
on poor countries
B. By explaining the Gini index as a measure of inequality
C. By comparing the economic fates of skilled and unskilled workers
D. By discussing the inevitable and often unpredictable consequences of globalization
A. Skilled workers
B. Inequality
C. Wealth distribution
D. Globalization
37. On the subject of consequences of globalization, Paragraphs E-II and E-III lay out the
difference between ___________________.