×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务

Here is a reading comprehension. If you have interset, pls. read it and give you answer here. It is a very good article which I excerpt.

本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Passage:

In Japan many workers for large corporations have a guarantee of lifetimes employment. They will not be laid off during recession or when the tasks they perform are taken over by robots. To some observers, this is capitalism at its best, because workers are treated as people not things. Others see it as necessarily inefficient and believe it cannot continue if Japan is to remain competitive with foreign corporations more concerned about profits and less concerned about people.

Defenders of the system argue that those who call it inefficient do not understand how it really works. In the first place not every Japanese worker has a guarantee of a lifetime job. The lifetime employment system includes only “regular employees”. Many employees do not fall into this category, including all women. All business have many part-time and temporary employees. These workers are hired and laid off during the course of business cycle just as employees in the United States are. These “irregular workers” make up about 10 percent of the nonagricultural work force. Additionally, Japanese firms maintain some flexibility through the extensive use of subcontractors. This practice is much more common in Japan than in the United States.

The use of both subcontractors and temporary workers has increased markedly in Japan since the 1974-1975 recession. All this leads some to argue that the Japanese system really is not all that different from the American system. During recessions Japanese corporations lay off temporary workers and give less business to subcontractors. In the United States, corporations lay off those workers with the least seniority. The difference then is probably less than the term “lifetime employment” suggests, but there still a difference . And this difference can not be understood without looking at the values of Japanese society. The relationship between employer and employee cannot be explained in purely contractual terms. Firms hold on to the employees and that employees stay with one firm. There are also practical reasons for not jumping from job to job. Most retirement benefits come from the employer. Changing jobs means losing these benefits. Also, teamwork is an essential part of Japanese production. Moving to a new firm means adapting to a different team and at least temporarily, lower productivity and lower pay.

Questions:

1. Which of the following is the best title for this passage?
(a) Employment in Japan
(b) Employment both in Japan and in America
(c) Lifetime Employment in Japan
(d) Lifetime Employment in United States

2. According to the passage, a woman in Japan .
(a) cannot get a lifetime job
(b) cannot get a part time job
(c) will be employed for life
(d) is among the regular workers

3. The use of subcontractors .
(a) is much more common in Japan than in the United States
(b) began in 1974
(c) make Japanese firms less flexible
(d) is out of date now in Japan

4. Those, who are first laid off by American corporations, are
(a) temporary workers
(b) regular workers
(c) senior workers
(d) junior workers

5. The following statements are reasons for Japanese workers to stay with one firm except
(a) they don’t want to lose their retirement benefits
(b) they get used to the teamwork
(c) any change of jobs will make them less paid
(d) they are not adaptable people

6. Please try to translate the sentences "Others see it as necessarily inefficient and believe it cannot continue if Japan is to remain competitive with foreign corporations more concerned about profits and less concerned about people." into Chinese:更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 工作学习 / English / Here is a reading comprehension. If you have interset, pls. read it and give you answer here. It is a very good article which I excerpt.
    本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Passage:

    In Japan many workers for large corporations have a guarantee of lifetimes employment. They will not be laid off during recession or when the tasks they perform are taken over by robots. To some observers, this is capitalism at its best, because workers are treated as people not things. Others see it as necessarily inefficient and believe it cannot continue if Japan is to remain competitive with foreign corporations more concerned about profits and less concerned about people.

    Defenders of the system argue that those who call it inefficient do not understand how it really works. In the first place not every Japanese worker has a guarantee of a lifetime job. The lifetime employment system includes only “regular employees”. Many employees do not fall into this category, including all women. All business have many part-time and temporary employees. These workers are hired and laid off during the course of business cycle just as employees in the United States are. These “irregular workers” make up about 10 percent of the nonagricultural work force. Additionally, Japanese firms maintain some flexibility through the extensive use of subcontractors. This practice is much more common in Japan than in the United States.

    The use of both subcontractors and temporary workers has increased markedly in Japan since the 1974-1975 recession. All this leads some to argue that the Japanese system really is not all that different from the American system. During recessions Japanese corporations lay off temporary workers and give less business to subcontractors. In the United States, corporations lay off those workers with the least seniority. The difference then is probably less than the term “lifetime employment” suggests, but there still a difference . And this difference can not be understood without looking at the values of Japanese society. The relationship between employer and employee cannot be explained in purely contractual terms. Firms hold on to the employees and that employees stay with one firm. There are also practical reasons for not jumping from job to job. Most retirement benefits come from the employer. Changing jobs means losing these benefits. Also, teamwork is an essential part of Japanese production. Moving to a new firm means adapting to a different team and at least temporarily, lower productivity and lower pay.

    Questions:

    1. Which of the following is the best title for this passage?
    (a) Employment in Japan
    (b) Employment both in Japan and in America
    (c) Lifetime Employment in Japan
    (d) Lifetime Employment in United States

    2. According to the passage, a woman in Japan .
    (a) cannot get a lifetime job
    (b) cannot get a part time job
    (c) will be employed for life
    (d) is among the regular workers

    3. The use of subcontractors .
    (a) is much more common in Japan than in the United States
    (b) began in 1974
    (c) make Japanese firms less flexible
    (d) is out of date now in Japan

    4. Those, who are first laid off by American corporations, are
    (a) temporary workers
    (b) regular workers
    (c) senior workers
    (d) junior workers

    5. The following statements are reasons for Japanese workers to stay with one firm except
    (a) they don’t want to lose their retirement benefits
    (b) they get used to the teamwork
    (c) any change of jobs will make them less paid
    (d) they are not adaptable people

    6. Please try to translate the sentences "Others see it as necessarily inefficient and believe it cannot continue if Japan is to remain competitive with foreign corporations more concerned about profits and less concerned about people." into Chinese:更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
    • 1. C 2. A 3. B 4. D 5. ABC
      6. translation: 其他人认为这种(终身雇用)制度效率一定不佳,而且认为日本若想保持与那些“重利润,轻人力”的外国公司的竞争力,这种制度将难以为继。

      by the way, I don't think it's a good English article. It seems to be writted by some non-native speaker.
      • 注意第5题题干关键词“except"
        • 现在我把第五题的答案改为:c
    • c.a.a.a.abd
      • 现在不公布答案,欢迎更多的朋友参与进来,看谁能得100分。
    • c, a, a, d, d
    • 1,a 2.a 3.a 4,a 5,d
    • c,a,a,d,d
    • 1a 2a 3a 4d 5d
    • c,a,a,d,d 其他人则认为,如果日本持续和外国公司处于竞争中,它就会更多地考虑利益因素而非人力,那么,这种保障体系也将不会持续下去。 。。。。。好象是IELTS的模拟训练题吧?。。。。。。。
    • hi,大家好,快来做这道题,非常有难度,现在还没有人全对!
      • you are BSing us, this thing looks like a grade 11 test, and by the way, it's so obvious that the whole thing was made up by some chinaman cuz nobody talks like Question 6, you gonna get zero to write up a wordy sentence like that
    • 答案:1,c 2,a 3,a 4,c 5,d 翻译:另一些观察家认为它必然导致效率低下,并认为如果日本想要在更多关心利润、较少关心人上同国外公司竞争,这种情况不会持续太久。
      注释:
      1.lay off::解雇,解聘
      2.take over:接管,取代
      3.regular employees:正式职工
      4.fall into this category:属于这一类
      5.work force:劳动力
      6.not all that different from:与…无区别,别无二致
      7.lifetime employment:终身雇佣制
      8.recession:经济萧条
      9.subcontractors:分包单位
      10.seniority:资力

      不过我认为第4题应选d,但答案为c,下次上课时我问一下老师,看到底是怎么回事。