当前商务英语试题及答案

2021年1月21日发(作者：conference是什么意思)
商务英语试题

I.

Translate the following terms into English (30%):
1)
兼并


2)
商业周期


3)
上市公司


4)
泡沫经济


5)
股份


6)
欧洲债券市场


7)
审计


8)
贸易壁垒


9)
进口（贸易中）


10)
出口（贸易中）


II.

Translate the following terms into Chinese(30%):

1) EU

2) VC

3) promotion policy

4) marketing environment

5) bank statement

6) venture capital

7) buyer behavior

8) market segment

9) liquid investment

10) trade union
III.

Read
the
article
and
choose
one
best
answer
to
each
of
the
following
multiple choice questions according to the article ( 40%):
New Economy
As
America
emerges
from
what
may
be
the
shortest
economic
slump
in
memory, there is increasing evidence that New Economy factors----
including high productivity rates, better inventory management,
more flexible labor markets, and a greater share of jobs in the
service
sector
----
were
in
fact
responsible
for
the
brevity
of
the
slowdown. As the remarkable US expansion of the 1990s appears to
be
continuing,
the
New
Economy
seems
to
have
passed
the
first
real
test
of
its
resiliency.
And
the
structural
changes
being
driven
by
the New
Economy
have not receded or
been impeded by
the changes of
the last year; rather, they are as strong as ever.
As
these
structural
changes
continue
to
sweep
through
our
national
economy,
they
are
restructuring
and
reshaping
the
50
state
economies.
In
1999,
at
the
height
of
the
New
Economy
euphoria,
PPI
released its first
State New Economy Index, which included 17
indicators to measure the degree to which state economies were
structured
and
operated
according
to
the
tenets
of
the
New
Economy.
In
2002,
after
the
New
Economy
has
proved
itself
and
is
being
viewed
by most with a more careful and realistic eye, PPI’s 2002 State
index
uses
21
economic
indicators
to
measure
these
differences
and
ass
ess states’ progress as they adapt to the new economic order.
With these indicators as a frame of reference, the report then
outlines a state-level public policy framework aimed at boosting
the incomes of all Americans.
While
in
1999
many
thought
that
the
New
Economy
changed
everything
(including the need for companies to make a profit), in 2001 many
scoffed at it as simply a flash in the pan or, worse, a myth spun
by an over-imaginative media. Many questioned if after the superb
economic performance of the 1990s we were doomed to return to the
dismal days of the later 1970s and 1980s. The reality is that the
New
Economy
was
neither
an
epochal
and
dizzying
transformation
nor
a slogan generated by some dot-com companies looking to inflate
their
IPO
prices.
Rather
it
was
and
is
the
kind
of
profound
transformation of all industries that happens perhaps twice ina
century.
Such
a
change
is
equivalent
in
scope
and
depth
to
the
rise
of
the
manufacturing
economy
in
the
1890s and
the
emergence
of
the
mass-production, corporate economy in the 1940s and 1950s. As we
pass
through
one
of
those
groundswells
that
regularly
but
infrequently
reshape
the
economy
(and
society)
from
top
to
bottom,
there will be occasional bumps along the way---- like the recent
economic downturn---- but these are the negative phrases within
what we can expect to be a much longer growth period.
While
there
was
considerable
bad
news
that
gave
doubters
even
more
reasons to
doubt,
the reality
never
was as bad as it was portrayed
to
be.
The
Nasdaq
fell
from
its
commanding
heights
of
5,000
in
2000
to roughly
1,850
in March
2002, but it was still
43 percent higher
than when Alan Greenspan warned of “irrational exuberance” in
1998.
In
2001,
almost
110,000
jobs
were
lost
at
dot-coms,
many due
to
failures,
including
such
high- fliers
as

and
.
But
even
so,
the
total
number
of
US
dot-com
domains
grew
54
percent
from July 2000 to July 2001. And the recession so far has turned
out
to
not
really
be
a
recession,
since
we
have
so
far
only
experienced
one
negative
quarter
of
GDP
growth
(3rd
quarter,2001),
not the two consecutive ones required to constitute a recession.
Moreover,
unlike
past
slowdowns,
productivity
has
actually
grown,
at an annual and stunning rate of 5.1 percent in the 4th quarter
of 2001. And while unemployment was up, its peak of 5.8 percent
(December
2001)
was
generally
lower
than
average
levels
throughout
the 1980s.
Moreover,
even
though
the
tech
sector
is not
the
high-flyer
it
was
just a year ago, there’s a fallacy in the lea
p from bad news in
high-tech and even in the broader economy to the death of the New
Economy.
Those
who
think
the
New
Economy
was
some
late-90s
flash-in-the-pan staked to the emergence of dot-coms are roughly
equivalent
to
the
great
wits
who
shouted “Get
a

horse!”
at
early
motorists broken
down on the
side of the road. In
the early 1930s,
people
might
have
equated
the
bankruptcy
of
car
companies
with
the
end of the
auto era. But obviously
that was just
the beginning. In
all
regards,
it
looks
like
the
worst
is
behind
us
and
we
are
poised
for
a
period
of
robust
New
Economy
growth,
perhaps
less
spectacular
than
the
dizzying
days
of
2000,
but
strong
all
the
same.
It’s
clear
that
this
was
more
than
a
one-time
burst
of
energy
that
has
dissipated. Rather, we’ve bar
ely scratched the surface of New
Economy digital transformation. To paraphrase Mark Twin, reports
of the New Economy’s demise have been greatly exaggerated.

Broadband Internet
connections continue to grow by more th 50
percent a year. Venture capitalists invested more in 2001 than in
any year prior to 1999 and more than they did in the years 1990 to
1996
combined.
Corporate
R&D
as
a
share
of
GDP
reached
an
all-time
high
in
2000.
E-commerce
retail
sales
in
the
last
year
grew
2.5
time
faster than total retail sales. Business investments in formation
technology
fell
relative
to
2000
levels,
but
were
15
percent
higher
than 1999 levels. And a host of new technologies, including voice
recognition, expert systems, smart cards, e-books, cheap storage
devices,
new
display
devices
and
video
software,
intelligent
transportation
systems,
“third
generation”
wireless
communication
devices,
and
robots,
are
poised
to
be
commercialized.
But
even
though
the
IT
revolution
is
still
only
in
its
adolescence
and exciting times are ahead, we need to remember that the New
Economy was never just about the Internet and what investors Jim
Clark and writer Michael Lewis dubbed the “next new thing.”

Rather,
the
New
Economy
is
about
the
transformation
of
all
industries
and
the
overall
economy.
As
such,
the
New
Economy
represents
a
complex
array
of
forces.
These
include
the
reorganization
of
firms,
more
efficient
and
dynamic
capital
markets,
more
economic
“churning”
and
entrepreneurial
dynamism,
relentless globalization, continuing economic competition, and
increasingly volatile labor markets. And there is every reason to
believe
that
these
forces
that
produced
a
turnaround
in
productivity and wage growth in the last half of the 1990s will
continue to produce equally strong growth in the first decade of
the
2000s.
As
a
result,
there
are
a
number
of
new
economic
realities
that states need to contend with.
First,
new
industries,
especially
traded
services
and
E-businesses,
are
becoming
a
more
important
share
of
the
economic
base
of
regions.
As
manufacturers
continue
to
dramatically
boost
productivity,
factory jobs continue to decline as a share of total employment
while
jobs
in
services
grow.
For
example,
Navistar’s
Indianapolis
engine
plant
spent
$$285
million
in
new
investments
between
1995
and
2000 with the result that while it took 900 people to produce 175
engines a day in 1994, the same 900 workers produce 1,400 today.
As
a
result
of
efforts
by
Navistar
and
the
nation’s
other
360,000
manufacturing firms, manufacturing jobs now account for just 13.4
percent
of
employment.
Even
in
traditionally
manufacturing-oriented states like Michigan and North Carolina,
manufacturing employment is only 19.8 percent and 18.2 percent of
all jobs, respectively. This is not to say that manufacturing is
not im
portant; it’s usually the economic base sector that brings
in
money
from
outside
the
region
that
in
turn
supports
local-serving
businesses (e.g. dry cleaners). But it does mean that states that
look
to
growing
sectors,
many
of
which
will
be
outside
of
manufacturing, will be the ones that succeed.
Second, most industries and firms, even “traditional ones”, are
organizing work around technology. While the “high
-
tech” firms
focus on developing new technologies, all of them must be using
advanced technology to be successful. For example, manufacturers
who use more technologies (e.g. computer-aided design) in their
production processes pay higher wages, export more, and are more
productive than manufacturers who do not. States whose policies
make
it
easy
for
firms
and
their
employees
to
access
and
use