Part A: Reading Comprehension
Text 3
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 can’t immediately foresee.
When there is exponential 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’s 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?”
31. According to the first paragraph, economic downturns would
32. The authors of Race Against the Machine argue that
33. Hagel argues that jobs in the U.S. are often
34. According to the last paragraph, Brynjolfsson and McAfee discussed
35. Which of the following could be the most appropriate title for the text?
答案解析 (Answers & Explanations)
31. [B] highlight machines’ threat to human jobs.
解析：第一段首句指出：“人与机器对抗的概念至少和工业革命一样古老，但这种现象在经济衰退期会被最敏锐地（强烈地）感觉到（most acutely felt during economic downturns）”。接着说科技正在吞噬人类的工作（eating up human jobs）。因此，经济衰退会使机器对人类工作的威胁更加“凸显/强调（highlight machines’ threat）”，选B。
32. [A] technology is diminishing man’s job opportunities.
解析：第二段中，两位作者通过《Race Against the Machine》一书提出了一个观点：“原本被认为对自动化免疫的工作突然受到了威胁（jobs that were once thought to be immune from automation suddenly become threatened）”。这说明科技发展正在“减少/削弱（diminishing）”人类的就业机会，选A。
33. [D] designed against human creativity.
解析：第四段首句引用 Hagel 的观点，美国的工作被设计得“严格照本宣科（tightly scripted）”且“高度标准化（highly standardized）”，“没有给个人主动性或创造力留下空间（leave no room for individual initiative or creativity）”。没有留下空间，也就是在设计上是“排斥/对抗人类创造力的（designed against human creativity）”，选D。
34. [D] the necessity of human involvement in the workplace.
解析：最后一段开头说：“正如Hagel指出的，Brynjolfsson和McAfee在他们的书中确实触及了这一点（touched on this point）”。“这一点（this point）”指代的是上一段（第五段）中Hagel的观点：职场比以往任何时候都更需要人们发挥主动性和想象力来应对突发事件。换言之，他们探讨了“人类参与职场的必要性（the necessity of human involvement in the workplace）”，因为机器只会做死板可预测的事，应对突发事件必须靠人。选D。
35. [A] How to Innovate Our Work Practices.
解析：主旨题。文章前两段提出了问题：机器正在取代人类工作。第三段和第四段深入分析原因：是因为我们的工作设计得太死板，让机器有机可乘。第五段和第六段给出解决方案：我们必须重塑工作模式，发挥人类特有的创造力和主动性，将“与机器竞争”转变为“与机器合作”。文章最后一句作为全文的总结：“那么问题就不在于技术，而在于‘我们该如何创新我们的制度和工作实践（how do we innovate our institutions and our work practices）’”。这正是作者试图探讨并解决的核心，选A。
全文翻译
人机对抗的概念至少与工业革命一样老，但这种现象往往在经济衰退和脆弱复苏期间感受最为强烈。然而，认为我们现在只是在经历繁荣与萧条周期的痛苦一面是错误的。某些工作已经永远消失，被机器淘汰。由于技术对吞噬人类工作有着如此贪得无厌的胃口，这种现象将继续以我们无法立即预见的方式重组我们的经济。
当技术的价格和性能呈指数级进步时，曾经被认为不会受自动化影响的工作突然受到威胁。这一论点通过《与机器赛跑》一书的成功引起了广泛关注，作者是埃里克·布伦乔尔森和安德鲁·麦卡菲，两人都来自麻省理工数字商业中心。
这是一个有力的论点，也是一个可怕的论点。然而，《拉动的力量》和其他书籍的作者约翰·哈格尔说，布伦乔尔森和麦卡菲忽视了为什么这些工作首先如此容易受到技术影响的原因。
哈格尔说，我们在美国设计了倾向于"严格脚本化"和"高度标准化"的工作，这些工作没有为"个人主动性或创造力"留下空间。简而言之，这些是机器可以比人类做得好的多的工作类型。哈格尔说，这就是我们如何在美国工人背上贴上了巨大的靶心标志。
哈格尔说，是时候重新发明工作方式的公式了，因为我们仍然依赖于一个非常20世纪的工作概念。在我们快速变化的经济中，我们比以往任何时候都更需要在工作中能够采取主动并运用想象力"回应意外事件"的人。这不是机器擅长的。它们被设计来执行非常可预测的活动。
如哈格尔指出的，布伦乔尔森和麦卡菲确实在他们的书中触及了这一点。我们需要将"与机器赛跑"重构为"与机器一起跑"。换句话说，我们需要看机器如何增强人类劳动而不是取代它。所以问题其实不在于技术，而在于"我们如何创新我们的制度和工作实践？"
核心长难句精解 (High-Light)
1. 介词短语前置与定语从句：
"When there is exponential improvement in the price and performance of technology, jobs that were once thought to be immune from automation suddenly become threatened."
【解析】主句的主语是 jobs，其后 that 引导定语从句修饰 jobs。`be immune from` 意为“免于/不受...影响”。当技术呈指数级进步时，那些原本以为不会被自动化取代的工作也岌岌可危了。
"When there is exponential improvement in the price and performance of technology, jobs that were once thought to be immune from automation suddenly become threatened."
【解析】主句的主语是 jobs，其后 that 引导定语从句修饰 jobs。`be immune from` 意为“免于/不受...影响”。当技术呈指数级进步时，那些原本以为不会被自动化取代的工作也岌岌可危了。
2. 多个定语从句嵌套修饰：
"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.”"
【解析】这是一个双重定语从句。第一个 that 修饰 jobs；第二个 that 修饰代词 ones（指代前面的 jobs）。层层递进地批判了美国僵化的工作设计。
"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.”"
【解析】这是一个双重定语从句。第一个 that 修饰 jobs；第二个 that 修饰代词 ones（指代前面的 jobs）。层层递进地批判了美国僵化的工作设计。
3. 介词宾语从句与平行对比：
"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?”"
【解析】in which 引导定语从句修饰 the ways。rather than（而不是）连接了 augment 和 replace。末句的 not..., but rather... 结构将矛头从“怪罪技术”转移到“反思我们的制度和工作实践”，点明了全文的终极主旨。
"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?”"
【解析】in which 引导定语从句修饰 the ways。rather than（而不是）连接了 augment 和 replace。末句的 not..., but rather... 结构将矛头从“怪罪技术”转移到“反思我们的制度和工作实践”，点明了全文的终极主旨。