In the last half of the nineteenth century capital and labor were enlarging and perfecting their rival organizations on modern lines. Many an old firm was replaced by a limited liability company with a bureaucracy of salaried managers. The change met the technical requirements of the new age by engaging a large professional element and prevented the decline in efficiency that so commonly spoiled the fortunes of family firms in the second and third generation after the energetic founders. It was moreover a step away from individual initiative, towards collectivism and municipal and state-owned business. The railway companies, though still private business managed for the benefit of shareholders, were very unlike old family business. At the same time the great municipalities went into business to supply lighting, trams and other services to the taxpayers.
　　
　　The growth of the limited liability company and municipal business had important consequences. Such large, impersonal manipulation of capital and industry greatly increased the numbers and importance of shareholders as a class, an element in national life representing irresponsible wealth detached from the land and the duties of the landowners; and almost equally detached from the responsible management of business. All through the nineteenth century, America, Africa, India, Australia and parts of Europe were being developed by British capital, and British shareholders were thus enriched by the world's movement towards industrialization. Towns like Bournemouth and East Bourne sprang up to house large comfortable classes who had retired on their incomes, and who had no relation to the rest of the community except that of drawing dividends and occasionally attending a shareholders' meeting to dictate their orders to the management. On the other hand Shareholding meant leisure and freedom which was used by many of the later Victorians for the highest purpose of a great civilization.
　　
　　The shareholders as such had no knowledge of the lives, thoughts or needs of the workmen employed by the company in which he held shares, and his influence on the relations of capital and labour was not good. The paid manager acting for the company was in more direct relation with the men and their demands, but even he had seldom that familiar personal knowledge of the workmen which the employer had often had under the more patriarchal system of the old family business now passing away. Indeed the mere size of operations and the numbers of workmen involved rendered such personal relations impossible. Fortunately, however, the increasing power and organisation of the trade unions, at least in all skilled trades, enabled the workmen to meet on equal terms the managers of the companies who employed them. The cruel discipline of the strike and lockout taught the two parties to respect each other's strength and understand the value of fair negotiation.
　　
　　59. It's true of the old family firms that ________.
　　
　�。ˋ）they were spoiled by the younger generations
　　
　　（B）they failed for lack of individual initiative
　　
　�。–）they lacked efficiency compared with modern companies
　　
　　（D）they could supply adequate services to the taxpayers
　　
　　60. The growth of limited liability companies resulted in ________.
　　
　�。ˋ）the separation of capital from management
　　
　　（B）the ownership of capital by managers
　　
　�。–）the emergence of capital and labour as two classes
　　
　�。―）the participation of shareholders in municipal business
　　
　　61. According to the passage, all of the following are true except that ________.
　　
　�。ˋ）the shareholders were unaware of the needs of the workers
　　
　�。˙）the old firm owners had a better understanding of their workers
　　
　�。–）the limited liability companies were too large to run smoothly
　　
　�。―）the trade unions seemed to play a positive role
　　
　　62. The author is most critical of ________.
　　
　�。ˋ）family firm owners　　（B）landowners
　　
　�。–）managers　　　　　�。―）shareholders
　　
　　答案及試題解析
　　
　　試題解析：
　　
　　59.（C）本題提問部分意為：事實(shí)上，老家族公司……。選擇項(xiàng)（C）意為：與現(xiàn)代公司相比，它們?nèi)狈π�率�?br />　　
　　第一段第二、三句指出，許多老公司被擁有各級(jí)拿薪水的經(jīng)理的有限（責(zé)任）公司所取代。這一變化通過一大批專業(yè)人員的使用適應(yīng)了新時(shí)代技術(shù)的要求、防止了效率的下降。而效率的下降使許多家族公司破產(chǎn)，因?yàn)榈诙�、三代繼承人已不像公司的創(chuàng)立者那樣精力充沛。
　　
　　A意為：它們被后代毀了。（A）不對主要有兩個(gè)原因，其一，原文指出：是效率的下降毀了家庭公司，而效率的下降可能是主觀原因造成的，也可能是客觀原因造成的；其二，根據(jù)原文，效率的下降通常（so commonly）在第二、三代毀了家庭公司，so commonly一詞的使用說明還有沒破產(chǎn)的家庭公司。
　　
　　B意為：它們因缺乏個(gè)人的獨(dú)創(chuàng)精神而破產(chǎn)。從以上的分析可見，破產(chǎn)的原因是缺乏效率。
　　
　　D意為：它們能為納稅人提供足夠的服務(wù)項(xiàng)目。
　　
　　60.（A）意為：資本與管理的分離，第二段指出，有限公司及市營買賣的發(fā)展引起了重大變化。對資本與企業(yè)的如此大規(guī)模的非個(gè)人操縱大大地增加了作為一個(gè)階級(jí)的持股人的數(shù)量及其地位的重要性。國民生活中這一現(xiàn)象的出現(xiàn)代表了與土地及土地所有者相分離的不由個(gè)人負(fù)責(zé)的財(cái)富的出現(xiàn)，而且這也意味著（不由個(gè)人負(fù)責(zé)的財(cái)富）幾乎在同等程度上與由個(gè)人負(fù)責(zé)的商業(yè)管理的分離。在整個(gè)19世紀(jì)，美洲、非洲、印度、澳大利亞及歐洲的部分國家的發(fā)展靠的是英國的資本，因此，在世界走向工業(yè)化的過程中英國的股東們大發(fā)其財(cái)。從以上的論述可以看出，作者認(rèn)為：有限公司的發(fā)展引起了資本與經(jīng)營的分離，投資者（股東）并不實(shí)際參加經(jīng)營，而是坐吃紅利（dividends）或有時(shí)參加些間接管理；而真正的管理者未必再是公司的擁有者。這一點(diǎn)從第三段的論述也同樣可以看出。
　　
　　B意為：經(jīng)理對資本的所有權(quán)。
　　
　　C意為：勞資兩個(gè)階級(jí)的出現(xiàn)。勞資兩個(gè)階級(jí)早在資本主義的形成時(shí)期就已經(jīng)存在了。
　　
　　D意為：股東對市辦買賣的參與。
　　
　　61.（C）意為：有限公司太大以至于運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)艱難。本文并未提到這一點(diǎn)。
　　
　　A意為：股東不了解工人的需要。這一點(diǎn)在第三段第一句說得很清楚。該句可譯為：這樣的股東根本就不了解自己持股的公司里的工人們的生活、思想和需要，因此。他們對勞資雙方的關(guān)系有不良影響。
　　
　　B意為：老公司的老板更了解自己的工人。第三段第二、三句指出，公司的拿薪水的執(zhí)行經(jīng)理與工人和他們的需要有更直接的關(guān)系。但是，與現(xiàn)在正在消失的世襲制的舊家族企業(yè)的老板相比，即使是他也很少有過去那種對工人的熟悉程度。的確，僅經(jīng)營的規(guī)模和雇用工人的數(shù)量兩方面就使得這種個(gè)人關(guān)系的建立成為不可能的事。
　　
　　C意為：工會(huì)似乎起一個(gè)正面作用。第三段第三、四句指出，然而，值得慶幸的是，至少在所有技術(shù)行業(yè)，工會(huì)與日俱增的力量使得工人們可以同他們的雇主平起平坐。罷工與封廠的嚴(yán)酷懲罰使雙方學(xué)會(huì)了互相尊重，明白了公平協(xié)商的價(jià)值。可見，在這方面，工會(huì)起到了保護(hù)工人的積極作用。
　　
　　62.（D）提問中is critical of意為：對……持批評(píng)態(tài)度。
　　
　　第二段第四句將股東階層稱為飽食終日（comfortable）者，他們與別人的關(guān)系僅限于抽取紅利，他們偶爾也參加一次股東會(huì)，對企業(yè)的管理指手畫腳（dictate their orders）。第三段指出，他們不了解工人，不關(guān)心工人。這里使用的顯然是一種批評(píng)的語氣。
　　
　　翻譯句子
　　
　　1、The change met the technical requirements of the new age by engaging a large professional element and prevented the decline in efficiency that so commonly spoiled the fortunes of family firms in the second and third generation after the energetic founders.

　　[參考譯文] 這種變化通過引入許多的專業(yè)因素從而適應(yīng)了這個(gè)新時(shí)代的技術(shù)要求，并且它（這種變化）防止了效率的降低。這種效率的降低在精力充沛的創(chuàng)業(yè)者之后的第二代和第三代人（領(lǐng)導(dǎo)公司）的時(shí)候，經(jīng)常會(huì)毀掉那些家族公司的財(cái)富。
　　
　　[結(jié)構(gòu)剖析] 句子的主干結(jié)構(gòu)是 The change met…requirements…and prevented the decline…。其中 by engaging a large professional element 是介詞詞組作狀語，說明 met the technical requirements of the new age 的方式。decline in efficiency 后面的 that 引導(dǎo)定語從句修飾前面的 decline in efficiency。

　　[閱讀重點(diǎn)] 此句的閱讀關(guān)鍵在于抓住句子的主干，即主要謂語動(dòng)詞，這樣就能把握句子的基本結(jié)構(gòu)，從而明白句子的主要意思。engage 在這里的意思是使卷入，涉及。
　　
　　2、Such large, impersonal manipulation of capital and industry greatly increased the numbers and importance of shareholders as a class, an element in national life representing irresponsible wealth detached from the land and the duties of the landowners； and almost equally detached from the responsible management of business.

　　[參考譯文] 這樣巨大而非個(gè)人的對資金和產(chǎn)業(yè)的操縱極大地增加了股東的數(shù)量和他們作為一個(gè)階級(jí)的重要性，這是國家生活中代表不負(fù)責(zé)任的財(cái)富的一個(gè)因素，這種財(cái)富不但遠(yuǎn)離了土地和土地?fù)碛姓叩呢?zé)任，而且?guī)缀跬瑯优c公司的負(fù)責(zé)任的管理毫無關(guān)系。
　　
　　[結(jié)構(gòu)剖析] 這個(gè)句子的主干結(jié)構(gòu)是…manipulation…increased the numbers and importance of shareholders as a class…。其中 an element 是 class 的同位語，representing irresponsible wealth 是現(xiàn)在分詞作定語修飾前面的 element，detached from 則是過去分詞作后置定語，相當(dāng)于是省略了 which is 的定語從句。and 連接兩個(gè) detached from，都修飾前面的 wealth。
　　
　　[閱讀重點(diǎn)] 理解 an element 是 a class 的同位語是理解此句的關(guān)鍵。只要分清句子的主語、謂語動(dòng)詞的中心詞，就能夠抓住句子的主要意思。在速度的時(shí)候，也可以先抓住主句而略過 an element 后面的部分不看。另外句中一些短語的意思也會(huì)影響到對整句的理解，如：detach from 與……相分離；irresponsible wealth 不負(fù)責(zé)任的財(cái)富，在本句中指的是股東們雖然擁有大量財(cái)富，但并不參與公司的運(yùn)作，不承擔(dān)任何經(jīng)營管理的責(zé)任。
　　
　　3、The shareholders as such had no knowledge of the lives, thoughts or needs of the workmen employed by the company in which he held shares, and his influence on the relations of capital and labour was not good.

　　[參考譯文] 這樣的股東對他擁有股份的公司所雇用的工人們的生活、思想和需求一無所知，而且他們對勞資雙方的關(guān)系都不會(huì)產(chǎn)生積極的影響。
　　
　　[結(jié)構(gòu)剖析] 這個(gè)句子是 and 連接的兩個(gè)并列句。第一個(gè)句子的主干結(jié)構(gòu)是 The shareholders had no knowledge…。在第一個(gè)句子中，employed 作定語修飾前面的workmen，相當(dāng)于省略了who were （employed by）……。which 引導(dǎo)定語從句 in which he held shares 修飾前面的 company。第二句的主干結(jié)構(gòu) his influence…was not good 是常見的主語+系動(dòng)詞+表語結(jié)構(gòu)。
　
　　[閱讀重點(diǎn)] 第一分句中要認(rèn)清 employed by 和后面 which 引導(dǎo)的從句都修飾什么成分的。另外，在閱讀本句中，指代關(guān)系也非常重要，要看清代詞 he 和 his 都是指代前面的 shareholders。