Mr Gordon is right that the second industrial revolution involved never-to-be-repeated changes. But that does not mean that driverless cars count for nothing. Messrs Erixon and Weigel are also right to worry about the West's dismal recent record in producing new companies. But many old firms are not run by bureaucrats and have reinvented themselves many times over: General Electric must be on at least its ninth life. And the impact of giant new firms born in the past 20 years such as Uber, Google and Facebook should not be underestimated: they have all the Schumpeterian characteristics the authors admire.
On the pessimists' side the strongest argument relies not on closely watching corporate and investor behavior but rather on macro-level statistics on productivity. The figures from recent years are truly dismal. Karim Foda, of the Brookings Institution, calculates that labor productivity in the rich world is growing at its slowest rate since 1950. Total factor productivity (which tries to measure innovation) has grown at just 0.1% in advanced economies since 2004, well below its historical average.
Optimists have two retorts. The first is that there must be something wrong with the figures. One possibility is that they fail to count the huge consumer surplus given away free of charge on the Internet. But this is unconvincing. The official figures may well be understating the impact of the Internet revolution, just as they downplayed the impact of electricity and cars in the past, but they are not understating it enough to explain the recent decline in productivity growth.
Another, second line of argument that the productivity revolution has only just begun is more persuasive. Over the past decade many IT companies may have focused on things that were more “fun than fundamental” in Paul Krugman's phrase. But Silicon Valley's best companies are certainly focusing on things that change the material world.
Uber and Airbnb are bringing dramatic improvements to two large industries that have been more or less stuck for decades. Morgan Stanley estimates that driverless cars could result in $ 507 billion a year of productivity gains in America, mainly from people being able to stare at their laptops instead of at the road.
1.What has led to the pessimistic opinion concerning the world's economy?
2.The first argument on the optimists' side is unconvincing because the official figures（ ）.
3.What is true about the IT companies in Silicon Valley?
4.How can driverless cars benefit American industries?
问题1选项
A.It is based on macro-level statistics on productivity.
B.It is based on close observation on corporate and investor behavior.
C.It is due to the fact that many old firms are not run by bureaucrats.
D.It is due to the fact that not enough new firms have been created.
问题2选项
A.are both wrong and unconvincing
B.downplay the Internet revolution
C.fail to include the consumer surplus
D.can't explain the decline in productivity growth
问题3选项
A.They have only focused on the fun part of life.
B.They have made a difference in the real world.
C.They have more persuasive productivity.
D.They have only just begun to develop.
问题4选项
A.Driverless cars have revived two large American industries.
B.The sale of driverless cars can reach hundreds of billion dollars.
C.Thanks to them people free from driving can do more creative work.
D.Driverless cars have stimulated the development of Uber and Airbnb
第1题:
【选项释义】
What has led to the pessimistic opinion concerning the world’s economy? 是什么导致了对世界经济的悲观看法？
A. It is based on macro-level statistics on productivity. A. 基于生产率的宏观统计数据。
B. It is based on close observation on corporate and investor behavior. B. 基于对公司和投资者行为的密切观察。
C. It is due to the fact that many old firms are not run by bureaucrats. C. 因为许多老公司并不是由官僚管理的。
D. It is due to the fact that not enough new firms have been created. D. 由于没有建立足够多的新公司。
【答案】A
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据关键词pessimistic定位到第二段第一句“在悲观主义者看来，最有力的论据不在于密切关注企业和投资者的行为，而是基于生产率的宏观统计数据”，理解可知，基于生产率的宏观统计数据致了对世界经济的悲观看法。故选项A符合原文。
【干扰项排除】
B选项“基于对公司和投资者行为的密切观察”与原文相反，反向干扰；
C选项“因为许多老公司并不是由官僚管理的”与题干无关，张冠李戴；
D选项“由于没有建立足够多的新公司”没提及，无中生有。
第2题:
【选项释义】
The first argument on the optimists’ side is unconvincing because the official figures ________. 乐观主义者的第一个论点并不令人信服，因为官方数据________。
A. are both wrong and unconvincing A. 是错误的，也没有说服力
B. downplay the Internet revolution B. 低估了互联网革命
C. fail to include the consumer surplus C. 没有包括消费者剩余
D. can’t explain the decline in productivity growth D. 无法解释生产率增长的下降
【答案】D
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据关键词optimists定位到第三段，根据最后两句“但这并不能令人信服。官方数据很可能低估了互联网革命的影响，就像他们过去低估了电力和汽车的影响一样，但他们的低估程度不足以解释最近生产率增长的下降。”，理解可知，即使乐观主义者认为官方数据低估了互联网革命的影响，但是这个低估的程度并不足以解释最近生产率增长的下降。所以乐观主义者的第一个论点并不令人信服，是因为官方数据无法解释生产率增长的下降。D选项符合原文。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“是错误的，也没有说服力”表述与原文不符，文中并没有表达官方数据是错误的且没有说服力，曲解原文；
B选项“低估了互联网革命”和C选项“没有包括消费者剩余”是乐观主义者的观点，与题干不符，张冠李戴。
第3题:
【选项释义】
What is true about the IT companies in Silicon Valley? 关于硅谷的IT公司，什么是正确的？
A. They have only focused on the fun part of life. A. 他们只关注生活中有趣的部分。
B. They have made a difference in the real world. B. 他们改变了现实世界。
C. They have more persuasive productivity. C. 他们的说服力更强。
D. They have only just begun to develop. D. 他们才刚刚开始发展。
【答案】B
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据关键词Silicon Valley定位至倒数第二段最后两句“过去十年，许多IT公司可能专注于Paul Krugman所说的‘有趣而非根本的东西’。但硅谷最好的公司肯定专注于改变物质世界（change the material world）。”，理解可知，硅谷的IT公司在过去十年可能是专注于有趣的东西，但是最好的IT公司一定关注于改变世界。B选项正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“他们只关注生活中有趣的部分”中的only太过绝对，属于过度推断；
C选项“他们的说服力更强”和D选项“他们才刚刚开始发展”未提及，属于无中生有。
第4题:
【选项释义】
How can driverless cars benefit American industries? 无人驾驶汽车如何使美国工业受益？
A. Driverless cars have revived two large American industries. A. 无人驾驶汽车重振了美国两大产业。
B. The sale of driverless cars can reach hundreds of billion dollars. B. 无人驾驶汽车的销售额可达数千亿美元。
C. Thanks to them people free from driving can do more creative work. C. 多亏了它们，人们不用开车就能做更多有创意的工作。
D. Driverless cars have stimulated the development of Uber and Airbnb. D. 无人驾驶汽车刺激了优步和爱彼迎的发展。
【答案】C
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据关键词driverless定位到文章最后一段，由最后一句“无人驾驶汽车每年将为美国带来5070亿美元的生产力增长，这主要是因为人们可以盯着自己的笔记本电脑而不是看着道路”可知，无人驾驶汽车能为美国带来5070亿美元的生产力增长，主要是因为人们可以在车上干别的事情，故C项正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“无人驾驶汽车重振了美国两大产业”和B选项“无人驾驶汽车的销售额可达数千亿美元”未提及，无中生有；
D选项“无人驾驶汽车刺激了优步和爱彼迎的发展”，文中没有提到无人驾驶汽车与优步和爱彼迎的关系，该项无中生有。
【文章来源】《经济学人》（The Economist）2016
【参考译文】
戈登说第二次工业革命带来的是无法重现的变革，没错。但这并不意味着无人驾驶汽车就不值一提。埃里克森和魏盖尔对近年来西方新成立公司数量大幅减少表示担忧也没错，但有很多老公司并非由官僚管理，而且多次重塑过自身：通用电气至少已经活到第九条命了。而且过去20年中诞生的新巨擘，如优步、谷歌和Facebook，所产生的影响力也不应低估：这些公司都具备熊彼特所言、并为那些作者们欣赏的特征。
悲观派最有力的论据依赖的并不是仔细观察企业和投资者行为，而是生产力的宏观统计数据，而近年来的数字的确惨淡。布鲁金斯学会的卡里姆•福达经计算得出，目前富裕国家劳动生产力的增长率是自1950年以来的最低。发达国家的全要素生产力（试图用来衡量创新）自2004年以来仅增长0.1%，远低于历史平均水平。
乐观派有两个反驳的论点。首先，数据一定有问题。一种可能性是这些数据未能涵盖互联网无偿给予的消费者剩余。但这不足以服人。官方数据很有可能低估了互联网革命带来的影响，就像他们过去曾低估电力和汽车的作用一样，但并没有低到足以解释近年来生产力增长的下降。
第二个论点是生产力革命才刚刚开始，这更具有说服力。在过去十年里，很多IT公司可能更多关注的是美国经济学家保罗•克鲁格曼所说的“好玩而非根本”的东西。但硅谷最好的公司确实是在专注于改变物质世界。
优步和爱彼迎显著改进了在过去数十年里多多少少裹足不前的两大行业。摩根•史丹利估计无人驾驶汽车在美国可能带来每年5070亿美元的生产力提升，这一提升主要来自于那些因不需要盯着路面而可以把精力放在笔记本电脑上的人。
