The concept of man versus machine is at least as old as the industrial revolution, but this phenomenon tends to be most acutely felt during economic downturns and fragile recoveries. And yet, it would be a mistake to think we are right now simply experiencing the painful side of a boom and bust cycle. Certain jobs have gone away for good, outmoded by machines. Since technology has such an insatiable appetite for eating up human jobs, this phenomenon will continue to restructure our economy in ways we cannot immediately foresee.
When there is rapid improvement in the price and performance of technology, jobs that were once thought to be immune from automation suddenly become threatened. This argument has attracted a lot of attention, via the success of the book Race Against the Machine, by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, who both hail from MIT’s Center for Digital Business.
This is a powerful argument, and a scary one. And yet, John Hagel, author of The Power of Pull and other books, says Brynjolfsson and McAfee miss the reason why these jobs are so vulnerable to technology in the first place.
Hagel says we have designed jobs in the U.S. that tend to be “tightly scripted” and “highly standardized” ones that leave no room for “individual initiative or creativity.” In short, these are the types of jobs that machines can perform much better at than human beings. That is how we have put a giant target sign on the backs of American workers, Hagel says.
It’s time to reinvent the formula for how work is conducted, since we are still relying on a very 20th century notion of work, Hagel says. In our rapidly changing economy, we more than ever need people in the workplace who can take initiative and exercise their imagination “to respond to unexpected events.” That is not something machines are good at. They are designed to perform very predictable activities.
As Hagel notes, Brynjolfsson and McAfee indeed touched on this point in their book. We need to reframe race against the machine as race with the machine. In other words, we need to look at the ways in which machines can augment human labor rather than replace it. So then the problem is not really about technology, but rather, “how do we innovate our institutions and our work practices?”
1、According to the first paragraph, economic downturns would_____.
2、The authors of Race Against the Machine argue that_____.
3、Hagel argues that jobs in the U.S. are often_____.
4、According to the last paragraph, Brynjolfsson and McAfee discussed_____.
5、Which of the following could be the most appropriate title for the text?
第1题:
【解析】细节事实题。由原文的“this phenomenon tends to be most acutely felt during economic downturns and fragile recoveries”可知，在经济低迷时代，人和机器的对决更加明显。因此B项“突出机器对人类工作岗位造成的威胁”是这句话的正确诠释。A项中ease与原文中“man versus machine...tends to be most acutely felt during economic downturns and fragile recoveries."含义相反；C项中technological revolution与原文提到的“industrial revolution”不是同一个概念，故排除；D项outmode our current economic structure与原文中“Certain jobs...outmoded by machines”语义不符，原文提到技术吞噬人类工作会重构我们的经济结构，并不是使现在的经济结构过时，故选B。
第2题:
【解析】由第二段的“jobs that were once thought to be immune from automation suddenly become threatened”可知，那些曾被认为无法被自动技术所取代的工作正遭受着随之而来的威胁。A项technology is diminishing man's job opportunities（科技正在减少人类的工作机会）是对这句话的最好解释，而C项错误：B项 automation is accelerating technological development与原文“once thought to be immune from automation”语义相反：原文提到随着技术的发展，那些不会受自动化影响的工作也受到了威胁，即技术发展带动了自动化，而非自动化带动了技术发展，排除；D项man will finally win the race against machine 与原文“This is a powerful argument，and a scary one.”不符，故选A。
第3题:
【解析】由原文的“leave no room for ‘individual initiative or creativity’”可知，在美国，工作被设计成“模式化”或“高度规范化”的一种，使得人们没有太多个人主动权和创造性。由此可知D项designed against human creativity符合原文的意思，是正确答案。A项和B项都不符合原文的no room for “individual initiative or creativity”；C项standardized without a clear target与原文的“put a giant target sign on the backs of American workers”不符，故选D。
第4题:
【解析】由原文“we need to look at the ways in which machines can augment human labor rather than replace it”可知，D项“人类参与工作的必要性”对应原文是不取代人的劳动，强调人的参与，是正确答案。A项the predictability of machine behavior in practice与文中“They are designed to perform very predictable activities（机器人被设计用来完成各种可以预测的任务）”不符；B项the formula for how work is conducted efficiently是Hagel的观点，不是Bryniolfsson和McAfee 的观点；C项the ways machines replace human labor in modern times 不符合原文“the ways in which machines can augment human labor rather than replace it（我们应该关注让机器增强人的能力而不是取代人力的方法）”，故选D。
第5题:
【解析】本文在第一段就提出了“人和机器的对决”的话题，然后围绕这一话题分析原因，寻求解决办法。因此C项Can We Win the Race Against Machines可以概括全文，适合做本文的标题。A项How to Innovate Our Work Practices 以偏概全；B项Machines will Replace Human Labor与文章意思不符；D项Economic Downturns Stimulate Innovations是细节信息，以偏概全，故选C。
