2008年考研英语阅读理解冲刺重点预测二
War games are commonly used by the military to evaluate strategies, explore scenarios and reveal unexpected weaknesses. American ships and aircraft have just begun two weeks of war games in the Gulf, prompting protests from Iran, and last week South Korea carried out an annual computerised war-game exercise.
Might war games deserve a greater role in business? Military analogies abound in the corporate world. Plenty of bosses look to Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese general, for management tips. And in business, as in war, outcomes depend on what others do, as well as one's own actions. Yet many firms fail to think systematically about how rivals will react to their plans—and traditional planning does a poor job of taking competitors' responses into account, says John McDermott, head of strategy at Xerox, an office-equipment company. Corporate war games, which simulate the interactions of multiple actors in a market, provide a better way to do so.
Such games have two chief characteristics. First, players break into teams and take on the roles of fierce competitors (and sometimes other citizens, such as customers). Second, the games involve several turns, allowing competitors not just to draw up their own strategies but to respond to the choices of others. Their popularity is rising. Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), a consultancy, is running 100 war games a year, up from around 50 three years ago. Open Options, a Canadian strategy consultancy, has been going since 1996 and its revenue doubled last year.
BAH introduces a quantitative element into its games, calculating the effect of each team's strategy on their company's profits and stockmarket value at the end of each turn. Open Options takes a further step. To help Xerox understand the market dynamics of the print and copy industry, it ran a one-day workshop in which teams from Xerox took the roles of the big companies in the market, itself included. Each team identified the things “their” company could do to change its strategy and drew up a list of its desired outcomes; these “preference trees” were shared with the other teams. The results were then pumped into Open Options' proprietary software tools, which played out interactions between the companies and produced a range of possible outcomes.
Mr McDermott says the game's predictive power was astonishing: one forecast, that a company would start to acquire a certain group of assets within the industry, came true within six months. By shedding light on areas where companies have different priorities, the concept of preference trees helps to highlight potential trade-offs, as well as competition. Open Options charges North American clients roughly $100,000 for an engagement.
The secret of successful war-gaming does not simply lie in mathematics, however. Interaction, not algebra, is the best way to win support for a new strategy. Game-players must be senior for the same reason—although having the top boss on a team can stifle feedback. Strategies also have to capture competitors' hard-to-quantify corporate cultures: when designing a game, BAH seeks out employees at its clients who have actually worked at competitors for that reason. But perhaps war games' greatest value lies in the way they encourage managers to think differently about the consequences of their actions. “To know your enemy, you must become your enemy,” as Sun Tzu would say.
注（1）：本文选自Economist, 05/31/2007
注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象：第1题模仿2002年真题Text 2第2题和Text 5第3题，第3题模仿1995年真题Text 2第4题，第4题模仿2000年真题Text 4第3题，第5题模仿1998年真题Text 2第4题。
1． The expression “abound in” (Line 1, Paragraph 2) most probably means _______.
[A] be limited
[B] be appreciated
[C] be driven
[D] be plentiful
2． According to the text, traditional corporate planning _______.
[A] has been completely abandoned.
[B] fails to consider rivals’ reactions.
[C] includes the detailed analyses of strategies of all rival companies.
[D] functions well for the development of most companies.
3． The positive effect of war games owes to the following EXCEPT_______.
[A] the role playing of competitors
[B] the composition of several turns
[C] the introduction of quantitative factors
[D] the rising popularity of the game
4． Which of the following is TRUE according to the text?
[A] Both BAH and Open Options developed their own software tools for data analysis of war games.
[B] The war game service expands slowly because of its high fee.
[C] “Preference trees” refers to desired outcomes of the companies.
[D] War game’s predictive ability is not convincing
5． Which of the following is NOT a reason for the success of war games?
[A] feedback
[B] mathematics
[C] interaction
[D] consideration of enemy
篇章剖析
本文是一篇说明文，围绕实战演习的商业用途及其价值这个话题进行了分析。第一段先简单介绍了什么是实战演习，第二段则立刻引入话题，指出公司制定战略的传统方式存在的缺点，从而提出本文的主要观点，即公司实战演习能够帮助更好地理解自身与竞争对手的状况。第三段介绍了实战演习的两个特点；第四、五段介绍了两家提供实战演习服务的咨询公司策划的实战演习内容及其效果。最后一段对文章进行了总结，进一步指出了实战演习的重要价值所在。
词汇注释
scenario [si`nB:ri[u] n. 情景；场面 quantitative [`kwRntitEtiv] adj.数量的, 定量的
prompt [prRmpt] v. 激励；刺激 identify [`aifdentifai] vt. 识别, 鉴别
analogy [[`nAlEgi] n. 类似, 类推 pump [pQmp] v. ]把灌注; 倾注
abound [[`baund] vi. 多, 富于, 充满 proprietary [prR`praiEtEri] adj. 所有的
stimulate [`stimjuleit] v. 刺激, 激励 astonish [`EstRniF] v. 惊奇，惊讶
multiple [`mQltipl] adj. 多样的, 多重的 trade-off n. 交换, 协定, 交易
consultancy [kEn`sQltnsi] n. 咨询; 顾问公司 algebra [`AldVibrE] n. 代数学
revenue [`revinju:] n. 收入 stifle [`staifl] vt. 使窒息, 抑制
难句突破
Mr McDermott says the game's predictive power was astonishing: one forecast, that a company would start to acquire a certain group of assets within the industry, came true within six months.
主体句式 Mr McDermott says…
结构分析 这个句子乍一看非常长，但是其结构却相当清楚。主要结构为Mr McDermott says the game's predictive power was astonishing，后面冒号的作用是举例进一步说明前面提到的结论。冒号后面句子的主体句式为one forecast came true within six months，而that 引导的这个句子是one forecast的具体内容，是一个同位语从句。
句子译文 麦克德莫特先生说这种演习的预测能力是惊人的：其中的一个预测是，一家公司将开始在该产业内得到一组资产，而这在六个月之后竟然真的实现了。
题目分析
1．D. 语义题。根据上下文，讨论了实战演习是否能够用于商界，并谈到许多老板都在向中国古代的著名军事家孙武学习管理技巧。显然，商业人士已经在运用很多军事上的理论。四个选项中，只有D最符合文意。
2．B. 细节题。文章第二段中，正如办公用品公司施乐公司的首席战略官约翰·麦克德莫特指出，“传统的计划方式很少把竞争者的反应考虑在内”，显然答案是B。
3．D. 细节题。从第三段和第四段中，我们可以找到实战演习之所以能够产生积极效果，是因为这种演习拥有两个重要的特点，同时还加入了“quantitative element”。而D选项并不是实战演习积极效果的原因，而是结果。
4．C. 细节题。根据文章第三段第六行，各个团队列出所扮演公司“希望达到的一系列成果”，后面紧跟着的“preference tree”即为上文“desired outcomes”的同义词。
5．A. 细节题。文章最后一段总结说明了实战演习模式之所以能够成功的原因，列举了三点，分别属于B、C、D，而A选项与题