原文
The world is going through the biggest wave of mergers and acquisitions ever witnessed. The process sweeps from hyperactive America to Europe and reaches the emerging countries with unsurpassed might. Many in these countries are looking at this process and worrying：“Won’t the wave of business concentration turn into an uncontrollable anticompetitive force？”
There’s no question that the big are getting bigger and more powerful. Multinational corporations accounted for less than 20% of international trade in 1982.Today the figure is more than 25% and growing rapidly. International affiliates account for a fastgrowing segment of production in economies that open up and welcome foreign investment. In Argentina, for instance, after the reforms of the early 1990s, multinationals went from 43% to almost 70% of the industrial production of the 200 largest firms. This phenomenon has created serious concerns over the role of smaller economic firms, of national businessmen and over the ultimate stability of the world economy.
I believe that the most important forces behind the massive M&A wave are the same that underlie the globalization process: falling transportation and communication costs, lower trade and investment barriers and enlarged markets that require enlarged operations capable of meeting customer’s demands. All these are beneficial, not detrimental, to consumers. As productivity grows, the world’s wealth increases.
Examples of benefits or costs of the current concentration wave are scanty. Yet it is hard to imagine that the merger of a few oil firms today could recreate the same threats to competition that were feared nearly a century ago in the U.S., when the Standard Oil trust was broken up. The mergers of telecom companies, such as WorldCom, hardly seem to bring higher prices for consumers or a reduction in the pace of technical progress. On the contrary, the price of communications is coming down fast. In cars, too, concentration is increasing—witness Daimler and Chrysler, Renault and Nissan—but it does not appear that consumers are being hurt.
Yet the fact remains that the merger movement must be watched. A few weeks ago, Alan Greenspan warned against the megamergers in the banking industry. Who is going to supervise, regulate and operate as lender of last resort with the gigantic banks that are being created? Won’t multinationals shift production from one place to another when a nation gets too strict about infringements to fair competition? And should one country take upon itself the role of “defending competition” on issues that affect many other nations, as in the U.S. vs. Microsoft case?
63．What is the typical trend of businesses today?
［A］to take in more foreign funds
［B］to invest more abroad
［C］to combine and become bigger
［D］to trade with more countries
64．According to the author, one of the driving forces behind M&A wave is .
［A］the greater customer demands
［B］a surplus supply for the market
［C］a growing productivity
［D］the increase of the world’s wealth
65．From paragraph 4 we can infer that .
［A］the increasing concentration is certain to hurt consumers
［B］WorldCom serves as a good example of both benefits and costs
［C］the costs of the globalization process are enormous
［D］the Standard Oil trust might have threatened competition
66．Toward the new business wave, the writer’s attitude can be said to be .
［A］optimistic
［B］objective
［C］pessimistic
［D］biased
第一段
The world is going through the biggest wave of mergers and acquisitions ever witnessed. The process sweeps from hyperactive America to Europe and reaches the emerging countries with unsurpassed might. Many in these countries are looking at this process and worrying：“Won’t the wave of business concentration turn into an uncontrollable anticompetitive force？”
①The world is going through the biggest wave of mergers and acquisitions ever witnessed.②The process sweeps from hyperactive America to Europe and reaches the emerging countries with unsurpassed might.③Many in these countries are looking at this process and worrying：“Won’t the wave of business concentration turn into an uncontrollable anticompetitive force？”①The world is going through the biggest wave of mergers and acquisitions ever witnessed.
mergers and acquisitions ： 并购； 合并 M&A MBA:工商管理硕士 master of Business Administration master n.硕士 v.精通 Business n.工商业， 商业 Administration n.行政管理； 政府 merge v.合并； merger n.合并； 并购 acquire v.acquisition n.联想 acquire IBM.联想并购了 IBM.腾讯 acquire...combine v.并购 combination n.business concentration 行业/商业 集中化/并购 consolidation n.巩固； 并购； 合并 wave n.波； 浪； 浪潮 a wave of business concentration:一波商业并购 a wave of college concentration:一波高校合并 storm n.风暴 a storm of protests:一波抗议;抗议风暴 snowstorm 暴风雨 rainstorm 暴风雪 v/n.经历 go through v.经历 experience v.经历； n.经验 undergo v.经历 史上最...最高级+ever witnessed.曾经 v.目击;见证=see=>曾经见证了...=>史上 The world is going through the biggest wave of mergers andacquisitions(ever witnessed).世界 正在经历 史上最大的并购浪潮。②The process sweeps from hyperactive America to Europe and reaches the emerging countries with unsurpassed might.
The process:the+名词=>指代上文中提到的事情： 史上最大的并购浪潮 sweep v.席卷， 横扫， 拖 sweep the floor 拖地 sweep the web 席卷互联网 sweep the world 席卷世界 sweep the campus 席卷全校 The Process 两个动作1.动作一： sweeps 席卷2.动作二： reaches 到达 the emerging countries 新兴国家 the emerging economies 新兴经济体 emerge v.出现； 问世 the rich countries 发达国家 the rich economies 发达经济体 The process sweeps from hyperactive America to Europe and reaches the emergingcountries(with unsurpassed might.)伴随状语 这一过程 从高度活跃的美国到欧洲席卷一切，而且到达新兴国家 active 活跃的； 积极的； 主动的 quiet 安静的 hyperactive 高度活跃的 with unsurpassed might ： 已无法超越的力量 伴随状语 surpass v.超越； 超过 surpass many rivals 超越很多对手 river 河流 surpassing lane 超车道 line 线 lane 道 unsurpassed might 无法超越的力量 might n.力量 might 情态动词 may/might 可能③Many in these countries are looking at this process and worrying：“Won’t the wave of business concentration turn into an uncontrollable anticompetitive force？”
Many in these countries are looking at this process and worrying：(“Won’t the wave of business concentration turn into an uncontrollable anticompetitive force？”)这些国家的很多人注视着这一过程并且忧心忡忡， 这一波商业并购浪潮 会不会演变为 一股无法控制的反竞争的力量呢？ One=One people many=few=some=Some may claim that 一些人可能认为...worry:忧心忡忡；忧虑；着急 uncontrollable:无法控制； 失控 force n.力量； 军队； v.逼迫， 迫使 a driving force 推动的力量 an anti-competitive force 一股反竞争的力量 anti-competitive forces 反竞争的力量 Won’t..A..turn into.B..A 会不会变成 B第二段
There’s no question that the big are getting bigger and more powerful. Multinational corporations accounted for less than 20% of international trade in 1982.Today the figure is more than 25% and growing rapidly. International affiliates account for a fastgrowing segment of production in economies that open up and welcome foreign investment. In Argentina, for instance, after the reforms of the early 1990s, multinationals went from 43% to almost 70% of the industrial production of the 200 largest firms. This phenomenon has created serious concerns over the role of smaller economic firms, of national businessmen and over the ultimate stability of the world economy.
①There’s no question that the big are getting bigger and more powerful.②Multinational corporations accountedforless than20%of international trade in1982.③Today the figure is more than25%and growing rapidly.④International affiliates accountfora fastgrowing segment of production in economies that open up and welcome foreign investment.⑤In Argentina,forinstance,after the reforms of the early1990s,multinationals went from43%to almost70%of the industrial production of the200largest firms.⑥This phenomenon has created serious concerns over the role of smaller economic firms,of national businessmen and over the ultimate stability of the world economy.①There’s no question that the big are getting bigger and more powerful.
②Multinational corporations accounted for less than 20% of international trade in 1982.
③Today the figure is more than 25% and growing rapidly.
④International affiliates account for a fastgrowing segment of production in economies that open up and welcome foreign investment.
⑤In Argentina, for instance, after the reforms of the early 1990s, multinationals went from 43% to almost 70% of the industrial production of the 200 largest firms.
⑥This phenomenon has created serious concerns over the role of smaller economic firms, of national businessmen and over the ultimate stability of the world economy.
第三段
I believe that the most important forces behind the massive M&A wave are the same that underlie the globalization process: falling transportation and communication costs, lower trade and investment barriers and enlarged markets that require enlarged operations capable of meeting customer’s demands. All these are beneficial, not detrimental, to consumers. As productivity grows, the world’s wealth increases.
①I believe that the most important forces behind the massive M&A wave are the same that underlie the globalization process:falling transportation and communication costs,lower trade and investment barriers and enlarged markets that require enlarged operations capable of meeting customer’s demands.②All these are beneficial,not detrimental,to consumers.③As productivity grows,the world’s wealth increases.①I believe that the most important forces behind the massive M&A wave are the same that underlie the globalization process: falling transportation and communication costs, lower trade and investment barriers and enlarged markets that require enlarged operations capable of meeting customer’s demands.
②All these are beneficial, not detrimental, to consumers.
③As productivity grows, the world’s wealth increases.
第四段
Examples of benefits or costs of the current concentration wave are scanty. Yet it is hard to imagine that the merger of a few oil firms today could recreate the same threats to competition that were feared nearly a century ago in the U.S., when the Standard Oil trust was broken up. The mergers of telecom companies, such as WorldCom, hardly seem to bring higher prices for consumers or a reduction in the pace of technical progress. On the contrary, the price of communications is coming down fast. In cars, too, concentration is increasing—witness Daimler and Chrysler, Renault and Nissan—but it does not appear that consumers are being hurt.
①Examples of benefits or costs of the current concentration wave are scanty.②Yet it is hard to imagine that the merger of a few oil firms today could recreate the same threats to competition that were feared nearly a century ago in the U.S.,when the Standard Oil trust was broken up.③The mergers of telecom companies,such as WorldCom,hardly seem to bring higher pricesforconsumers or a reduction in the pace of technical progress.④On the contrary,the price of communications is coming down fast.⑤In cars,too,concentration is increasing—witness Daimler and Chrysler,Renault and Nissan—but it does not appear that consumers are being hurt.①Examples of benefits or costs of the current concentration wave are scanty.
the current concentration wave 当前的并购浪潮②Yet it is hard to imagine that the merger of a few oil firms today could recreate the same threats to competition that were feared nearly a century ago in the U.S., when the Standard Oil trust was broken up.
③The mergers of telecom companies, such as WorldCom, hardly seem to bring higher prices for consumers or a reduction in the pace of technical progress.
④On the contrary, the price of communications is coming down fast.
⑤In cars, too, concentration is increasing—witness Daimler and Chrysler, Renault and Nissan—but it does not appear that consumers are being hurt.
第五段
Yet the fact remains that the merger movement must be watched. A few weeks ago, Alan Greenspan warned against the megamergers in the banking industry. Who is going to supervise, regulate and operate as lender of last resort with the gigantic banks that are being created? Won’t multinationals shift production from one place to another when a nation gets too strict about infringements to fair competition? And should one country take upon itself the role of “defending competition” on issues that affect many other nations, as in the U.S. vs. Microsoft case?
①Yet the fact remains that the merger movement must be watched.②A few weeks ago,Alan Greenspan warned against the megamergers in the banking industry.③Who is going to supervise,regulate and operate as lender of last resort with the gigantic banks that are being created?④Won’t multinationals shift production from one place to another when a nation gets too strict about infringements to fair competition?⑤And should one country take upon itself the role of “defending competition” on issues that affect many other nations,as in the U.S.vs.Microsoftcase?)
