Use of English (2021)

It’s not difficult to set targets for staff. It is much harder, [1], to understand their negative consequences. Most work-related behaviors have multiple components. [2] one and the others become distorted.

Travel on a London bus and you’ll [3] see how this works with drivers. Watch people get on and show their tickets. Are they carefully inspected? Never. Do people get on without paying? Of course! Are there inspectors to [4] that people have paid? Possibly, but very few. And people who run for the bus? They are [5]. How about jumping lights? Buses do so almost as frequently as cyclists.

Why? Because the target is [6]. People complained that buses were late and infrequent. [7], the number of buses and bus lanes were increased, and drivers were [8] or punished according to the time they took. And drivers hit these targets. But they [9] hit cyclists. If the target was changed to [10], you would have more inspectors and more sensitive pricing. If the criterion changed to safety, you would get more [11] drivers who obeyed traffic laws. But both these criteria would be at the expense of time.

There is another [12]: people became immensely inventive in hitting targets. Have you [13] that you can leave on a flight an hour late but still arrive on time? Tailwinds? Of course not! Airlines have simply changed the time a [14] is meant to take. A one-hour flight is now billed as a two-hour flight.

The [15] of the story is simple. Most jobs are multidimensional, with multiple criteria. Choose one criterion and you may well [16] others. Everything can be done faster and made cheaper, but there is a [17]. Setting targets can and does have unforeseen negative consequences.

This is not an argument against target-setting. But it is an argument for exploring consequences first. All good targets should have multiple criteria [18] critical factors such as time, money, quality and customer feedback. The trick is not only to [19] just one or even two dimensions of the objective, but also to understand how to help people better [20] the objective.

[A]therefore

[B]however

[C]again

[D]moreover

[A]Emphasize

[B]Identify

[C]Assess

[D]Explain

[A]nearly

[B]curiously

[C]eagerly

[D]quickly

[A]claim

[B]prove

[C]check

[D]recall

[A]threatened

[B]ignored

[C]mocked

[D]blamed

[A]punctuality

[B]hospitality

[C]competition

[D]innovation

[A]Yet

[B]So

[C]Besides

[D]Still

[A]hired

[B]trained

[C]rewarded

[D]grouped

[A]only

[B]rather

[C]once

[D]also

10.

[A]comfort

[B]revenue

[C]efficiency

[D]security

11.

[A]friendly

[B]quiet

[C]cautious

[D]diligent

12.

[A]purpose

[B]problem

[C]prejudice

[D]policy

13.

[A]reported

[B]revealed

[C]admitted

[D]noticed

14.

[A]break

[B]trip

[C]departure

[D]transfer

15.

[A]moral

[B]background

[C]style

[D]form

16.

[A]interpret

[B]criticize

[C]sacrifice

[D]tolerate

17.

[A]task

[B]secret

[C]product

[D]cost

18.

[A]leading to

[B]calling for

[C]relating to

[D]accounting for

19.

[A]specify

[B]predict

[C]restore

[D]create

20.

[A]modify

[B]review

[C]present

[D]achieve

深度解析 (Answers & Logic)

1. [B] however. 逻辑关系题。前句说“设定目标不难”，后句说“理解负面后果难得多”，构成转折关系，故选 however（然而）。
2. [A] Emphasize. 语义衔接题。工作行为由多个部分组成。“强调（Emphasize）”其中一个，其他的就会变形（distorted）。
3. [D] quickly. 语境词汇题。坐一趟伦敦的公交车，你就能“很快（quickly）”看到这个理论在司机身上是如何应验的。
4. [C] check. 动宾搭配题。有没有检查员来“检查（check）”人们是否付了钱？
5. [B] ignored. 语义照应题。结合前文司机从不查票，以及后文不顾一切抢时间，可知那些追赶公交车的人直接被“无视（ignored）”了。
6. [A] punctuality. 逻辑推理题。根据后文人们抱怨公交车迟到，以及司机因为时间长短受到惩罚，可知当时设定的考核目标是“准时（punctuality）”。
7. [B] So. 逻辑关系题。人们抱怨迟到，“所以（So）”增加了车辆和车道。构成因果关系。
8. [C] rewarded. 语义对照题。司机根据他们花费的时间被“奖励（rewarded）”或惩罚（punished），形成反义并列。
9. [D] also. 语义照应题。司机达到了时间指标（hit these targets），但为了抢时间，他们“也（also）”撞到了（hit，双关语）骑自行车的人。
10. [B] revenue. 逻辑推理题。如果目标改成什么，就会有更多查票员和灵敏的定价？显然是目标变成了“收入/收益（revenue）”。
11. [C] cautious. 逻辑推理题。如果标准变成安全，你会得到更多遵守交通规则的、“谨慎的（cautious）”司机。
12. [B] problem. 宏观结构题。前文讲了目标设定引发的种种乱象，这里提出“还有另一个问题（another problem）”：人们在达成目标上变得极其具有创造力（钻空子）。
13. [D] noticed. 动宾搭配题。你有没有“注意到（noticed）”你可以晚起飞一小时却依然准时到达？
14. [B] trip. 词义辨析题。航空公司只是改变了一趟“旅程（trip，此处代指航程）”本应花费的时间。
15. [A] moral. 固定搭配题。The moral of the story 意为“故事的寓意”。
16. [C] sacrifice. 语义照应题。呼应第一段的“强调一个，其他的就会变形”。选择一个标准，你很可能就会“牺牲（sacrifice）”其他的。
17. [D] cost. 惯用语题。一切都能做得更快更便宜，但这是有“代价（cost）”的。
18. [C] relating to. 分词短语题。所有好的目标都应包含“与（relating to）”时间、金钱等关键因素相关的多重标准。
19. [A] specify. 动宾搭配题。诀窍不仅在于“明确指出/具体说明（specify）”目标的一个或两个维度。
20. [D] achieve. 动宾搭配题。更要理解如何帮助人们更好地“实现/达成（achieve）”目标。

核心长难句精解 (High-Light)

1. 祈使句 + and + 简单句：
"Travel on a London bus and you’ll quickly see how this works with drivers."
 【解析】这是一种经典的句型结构 `祈使句 + and + 将来时句子`，相当于 `If you travel on a London bus, you will...`。这里生动地引出了读者作为体验者的视角。`how this works` 是 `see` 的宾语从句。 
2. 虚拟语气的嵌套使用：
"If the target was changed to revenue, you would have more inspectors and more sensitive pricing."
 【解析】这里使用了与现在/未来事实相反的虚拟语气（If 条件句用一般过去时，主句用 would + 动词原形）。作者通过连串的虚拟假设（如果目标是收入，如果目标是安全），论证了“考核什么，就会得到什么”的 KPI 毒性。 
3. not only... but also... 平行结构与不定式：
"The trick is not only to specify just one or even two dimensions of the objective, but also to understand how to help people better achieve the objective."
 【解析】句子的表语由 `not only... but also...` 连接的两个动词不定式短语构成，强调了管理者设定目标时的双重任务：既要明确指标维度，又要懂得如何赋能员工。 