考研英語(yǔ)閱讀理解精讀100篇：Unit 11

Unit 11

Hakan Samuelsson had been an exemplary boss of MAN, Europe’s third-biggest truckmaker. After taking charge in 2005, he transformed it from a clunky conglomerate with interests from printing presses to spaceflight into a business focused on building trucks, turbines and the house-sized diesel engines that power more than three-quarters of the world’s big ships. He also put in place a vigorous international expansion plan that included the purchase last year of Volkswagen’s Brazilian heavy-truck business and this year of a 25% stake in Sinotruk, China’s biggest maker of heavy trucks. Within five years, analysts expected MAN to be earning almost half its revenues in emerging markets. So when Mr Samuelsson abruptly stepped down on November 23rd it came as a shock to nearly everyone. Even his spokesman was on holiday.

The firm mumbled that his departure would allow it to focus on its main business. Some saw this as a reference to allegations that a few of MAN’s employees had paid bribes to win contracts, and that by leaving Mr Samuelsson would allow a clean break with the past. But prosecutors, who did not consider him a suspect, were equally surprised by his exit. His response to the allegations had been admirable, appointing independent lawyers and auditors to conduct a thorough investigation, while offering an amnesty to employees who agreed to help them.

A likelier explanation is that he clashed, not for the first time, with the chairman of the Volkswagen Group, the wily Ferdinand Pi?ch. In 2006 the two sparred when Mr Samuelsson launched a hostile bid for Scania, a Swedish truck firm. VW, which at the time controlled 34% of Scania’s stock, did not support the takeover. Instead Mr Pi?ch turned the tables on Mr Samuelsson when VW bought 20% of MAN（a stake subsequently increased to almost 30%）. Mr Pi?ch is now chairman of MAN’s supervisory board too, and so in a position to realise a long-held ambition to forge a three-way merger that would include VW’s truck business—a combination that would leapfrog Volvo and Daimler AG to become Europe’s biggest truckmaker. Analysts at HSBC reckon that a merger of just Scania and MAN would lead to annual savings of about 600m（$900m）a year. Mr Pi?ch has said in the past that a full-blown combination of all three could cut costs by as much as 1 billion a year.

Mr Samuelsson’s departure clears the way for his former adversary, Leif Ostling, the head of Scania, to run the new entity. It also hints at how a deal may be structured. The simplest way would have been for MAN to buy Scania, as MAN and VW between them already control 88% of Scania’s voting stock. That would, however, have forced VW to book a loss on its Scania stake（acquired at a higher share price than today’s）, putting strain on a balance-sheet already stretched by VW’s takeover of Porsche. A better option for VW might be for Scania to buy MAN and sell its non-truck operations—a ploy Mr Samuelsson would have resisted.

注（1）：本文選自Economist；

注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對(duì)象為2004年真題Text 1。

1. Why did the departure of Hakan Samuelsson shock everyone?

A) Because even his spokesman was not aware of the abrupt decision.

B) Because his over-expansion strategy for MAN was a complete failure.

C) Because his management of MAN yielded outstanding performance.

D) Because he succeeded in adding international components to the company.

2. Which of the following can be the main reason why the departure of Mr. Samuelsson is irrelevant to the bribery allegation?

A) He demonstrated complete support of an independent investigation of the case.

B) He was widely speculated to be involved in abetting bribery.

C) Even the prosecutors were unaware of his exit.

D) He pardoned the employees who were willing to cooperate.

3. What kind of action will Mr. Pi?ch possibly take for his ambition?

A) He will launch a hostile bid for the Swedish truck firm Scania.

B) He will build the largest truck maker in Europe.

C) He will merge Scania and MAN so as to achieve huge annual savings.

D) He will build a conglomerate by combing Volkswagen, Man and Scania.

4. Why is the departure of Mr. Samuelson a good piece of news to Mr. Pi?ch?

A) Because it clears the way for Leif Ostling to control the company that merges Volkswagen, Man and Scania.

B) Because Mr. Pi?ch was aware that Mr. Samuelson would not allow the sales of MAN’s non-truck operations.

C) Because it makes it much more convenient for VW and MAN to purchase Scania jointly.

D) Because the news will help reduce VW’s pressure in terms of loss on the balance sheet.

5. Which of the following is NOT true according to the last two paragraphs?

A) Volvo and Daimler AG are so far the two largest European truck makers.

B) Scania is largely involved in the dispute between Samuelson and Pi?ch.

C) Leif Ostling was Samuelson’s major adversary who forced the latter’s exit.

D) Porsche was recently merged into the Volkswagen Group.

篇章剖析

本文主要介紹了曼公司模范老板霍坎·薩穆埃爾松突然宣布離職，并分析了其中的原因。第一段介紹對(duì)曼公司的發(fā)展做出了卓越貢獻(xiàn)的薩穆埃爾松突然辭職的情況；第二段分析他的離職原因之一——關(guān)于曼公司的行賄指控，并得出否定結(jié)論；第三段分析原因之二——與大眾汽車集團(tuán)主席費(fèi)迪南德·皮希之間的矛盾，并詳細(xì)回顧了矛盾的由來(lái)；最后一段指出薩穆埃爾松辭職將會(huì)帶來(lái)的影響。

詞匯注釋

clunky /?kl??ki/ adj. 沉重的，笨重的

conglomerate /k?n?gl?m?r?t/ n. （多種經(jīng)營(yíng)的）聯(lián)合企業(yè)，企業(yè)集團(tuán)

turbine /?t??b?n/ n. 渦輪機(jī)，汽輪機(jī)

diesel /?di?z?l/ n. 柴油機(jī)

mumble /?m?mbl/ v. 含糊地說(shuō)，咕噥著說(shuō)

allegation /??l??ge??n/ n. 說(shuō)法，指控

prosecutor /?pr?s?kju?t?/ n. 檢察官，公訴人

amnesty /??mnesti/ n. 大赦，特赦

spar /spɑ?/ v. 爭(zhēng)論，爭(zhēng)吵

takeover /?te?k??v?/ n. 收購(gòu)，接管

merger /?m??d??/ n. （公司等的）合并

leapfrog /?li?pfr?g/ v. 超越，越級(jí)提升

full-blown /?ful?bl??n/ adj. 全面的

adversary /??dv?s?ri/ n. 對(duì)手，敵人

難句突破

Mr Pi?ch is now chairman of MAN’s supervisory board too, and so in a position to realise a long-held ambition to forge a three-way merger that would include VW’s truck business—a combination that would leapfrog Volvo and Daimler AG to become Europe’s biggest truckmaker.

主體句式：Mr Pi?ch is now chairman of MAN’s supervisory board too, and so in a position to...

結(jié)構(gòu)分析：本句的主句由and連接的兩個(gè)并列結(jié)構(gòu)組成。后半部分的并列結(jié)構(gòu)中，包括了一個(gè)that引導(dǎo)的定語(yǔ)從句that would include VW’s truck business，來(lái)修飾先行詞merger。破折號(hào)之后的a combination...biggest truckmaker是merger的同位語(yǔ)，其中又有一個(gè)that引導(dǎo)的定語(yǔ)從句來(lái)修飾combination。

句子譯文：現(xiàn)在，皮希同時(shí)也是曼公司監(jiān)事會(huì)的主席，這個(gè)位置能進(jìn)一步幫助他實(shí)現(xiàn)一個(gè)長(zhǎng)期的雄心計(jì)劃，即發(fā)起包括大眾卡車業(yè)務(wù)在內(nèi)的三方并購(gòu)業(yè)務(wù)，從而超越沃爾沃和戴姆勒AG成為歐洲最大的卡車制造商。

題目分析

1. C 細(xì)節(jié)題。文章第一段的主要作用是鋪墊，先是介紹薩穆埃爾松如何成功地經(jīng)營(yíng)了曼公司，而最后一句話筆鋒一轉(zhuǎn)，引出文章的主要議題，即薩穆埃爾松的離職引起了外界的震驚。之所以令所有人意外正是因?yàn)樗谋憩F(xiàn)如此出色，沒(méi)有人以為他會(huì)辭職，因此正確答案是C。提到他的發(fā)言人是為了進(jìn)一步強(qiáng)調(diào)事情發(fā)生之突然，并不是原因，因此A不正確。B與文章意思相反，顯然是錯(cuò)誤的。D只是薩穆埃爾松成就的一部分，并沒(méi)有全部概括。

2. A 細(xì)節(jié)題。本題對(duì)應(yīng)文章第二段，該段提到有人猜測(cè)薩穆埃爾松的離開(kāi)可能與該公司最近的一起賄賂案有關(guān)，他想借離職與這個(gè)案子做一個(gè)了斷，但實(shí)際上薩穆埃爾松本人做出了admirable response，大力支持案件調(diào)查，同時(shí)檢察官也不認(rèn)為他是嫌疑人，因此賄賂案不應(yīng)該成為他離職的真正理由。所以，正確答案是A。B指薩穆埃爾松教唆賄賂是沒(méi)有根據(jù)的。C也不正確，檢察官并不是不知道他的離職，而是同樣感到驚訝。D的表述雖然正確，但只是他在此案中的一個(gè)具體做法，不夠全面，因此不能入選。

3. D 細(xì)節(jié)題。文章第三段明確提到了皮希的雄心，如a three-way merger、a full-blown combination of all three這些詞匯都說(shuō)明他的目標(biāo)是三家公司的合并。A是薩穆埃爾松曾經(jīng)試圖做的事情，B是皮希的目標(biāo)或雄心而不是手段，C是匯豐銀行的預(yù)估，所以這三個(gè)選項(xiàng)都不正確。正確答案是D。

4. B 細(xì)節(jié)題。文章最后一段提到“更好的策略是讓斯堪尼亞公司收購(gòu)曼公司，并且出售曼公司的非卡車業(yè)務(wù)，而薩穆埃爾松肯定會(huì)堅(jiān)決反對(duì)這一策略”，可見(jiàn)B是正確答案，其余三個(gè)選項(xiàng)都與最后一段表述不符。

5. C 細(xì)節(jié)題。選項(xiàng)A、B、D都可在文章最后兩段找到對(duì)應(yīng)信息。最后一段的第一句指出Leif Ostling是薩穆埃爾松的老對(duì)手，但并沒(méi)有提及他迫使薩穆埃爾松離職，選項(xiàng)表述不正確，因此選C。

參考譯文

一直以來(lái)，霍坎·薩穆埃爾松都是歐洲第三大卡車制造商曼公司的模范老板。曼公司以前是一家笨重雜亂的企業(yè)集團(tuán)，生產(chǎn)從印刷機(jī)到宇宙飛船的各類產(chǎn)品。但自2005年霍坎·薩穆埃爾松掌管曼公司以來(lái)，他將公司轉(zhuǎn)型為一個(gè)專門生產(chǎn)卡車、渦輪機(jī)以及可給全世界四分之三以上的大型輪船提供動(dòng)力的、體積堪比房屋的柴油機(jī)的公司。他還積極實(shí)施一項(xiàng)國(guó)際擴(kuò)張計(jì)劃，包括去年收購(gòu)大眾在巴西的重型卡車業(yè)務(wù)，以及今年收購(gòu)中國(guó)最大的重型卡車制造商——中國(guó)重汽25%的股權(quán)。有分析家預(yù)測(cè)，五年之內(nèi)曼集團(tuán)將有近一半的收入來(lái)自發(fā)展中國(guó)家的新興市場(chǎng)。因此當(dāng)今年11月23日薩穆埃爾松先生突然提出辭職時(shí)，所有人都非常吃驚。甚至連他的發(fā)言人都還在休假。

對(duì)此，公司向外界含糊解釋道，薩穆埃爾松的離開(kāi)可以使公司專注于其主要業(yè)務(wù)。有些人認(rèn)為這是指之前的一些指控，即曼公司的一些雇員曾經(jīng)通過(guò)行賄來(lái)獲取訂單合同，而薩穆埃爾松的離職可以使他與此事有個(gè)徹底的了結(jié)。但認(rèn)為薩穆埃爾松沒(méi)有賄賂嫌疑的檢方也對(duì)其離職感到同樣的吃驚。薩穆埃爾松對(duì)這些指控的反應(yīng)令人欽佩，他一方面指派獨(dú)立律師和審計(jì)師進(jìn)行徹底的調(diào)查，另一方面則對(duì)那些配合調(diào)查的雇員給予寬大處理。

另一種更為可信的解釋是，薩穆埃爾松與大眾汽車集團(tuán)頗有心機(jī)的總裁費(fèi)迪南德·皮希之間產(chǎn)生了矛盾，而這已經(jīng)不是第一次了。早在2006年，兩個(gè)人就在薩穆埃爾松對(duì)瑞典卡車公司斯堪尼亞發(fā)起惡意收購(gòu)時(shí)有過(guò)爭(zhēng)執(zhí)，當(dāng)時(shí)持有斯堪尼亞公司34%股票的大眾公司不支持這項(xiàng)收購(gòu)。而當(dāng)大眾公司購(gòu)買了曼公司20%的股票時(shí)（隨后這個(gè)比例增加到30%），皮希最終占據(jù)了上風(fēng)?，F(xiàn)在，皮希同時(shí)也是曼公司監(jiān)事會(huì)的主席，這個(gè)位置能進(jìn)一步幫助他實(shí)現(xiàn)一個(gè)長(zhǎng)期的雄心計(jì)劃，即發(fā)起包括大眾卡車業(yè)務(wù)在內(nèi)的三方并購(gòu)業(yè)務(wù)，從而超越沃爾沃和戴姆勒AG成為歐洲最大的卡車制造商。匯豐銀行的分析家認(rèn)為，如果將斯堪尼亞公司和曼公司都并入大眾，那么這個(gè)集團(tuán)每年可以節(jié)省約6億歐元（約合9億美元）的成本。皮希過(guò)去也曾經(jīng)提到過(guò)，三家公司的全面合并將為每年削減多達(dá)10億歐元的成本。

薩穆埃爾松的離開(kāi)為他的老對(duì)手——斯堪尼亞公司的總裁萊夫·奧斯特林接管新公司掃清了障礙。他的離開(kāi)也暗示了這樁交易的方式。最簡(jiǎn)單的方式就是曼公司直買下斯堪尼亞公司，因?yàn)槁竞痛蟊姽粳F(xiàn)在共持有斯堪尼亞公司88%有表決權(quán)的股票。但是，大眾公司持有的斯堪尼亞公司股票會(huì)出現(xiàn)虧損（大眾公司購(gòu)買該公司股票時(shí)其股價(jià)比今天要高），這將給因收購(gòu)保時(shí)捷已經(jīng)壓力重重的大眾資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表又加上一個(gè)重?fù)?dān)。因此，對(duì)于大眾公司來(lái)說(shuō)，更好的策略是讓斯堪尼亞公司收購(gòu)曼公司，并且出售曼公司的非卡車業(yè)務(wù)，而薩穆埃爾松先生肯定會(huì)堅(jiān)決反對(duì)這一策略。