Part A: Reading Comprehension
Text 3
When Microsoft bought task management app Wunderlist and mobile calendar Sunrise in 2015, it picked two newcomers that were attracting considerable buzz in Silicon Valley. Microsoft’s own Office dominates the market for “productivity” software, but the start-ups represented a new wave of technology designed from the ground up for the smartphone world.
Both apps, however, were later scrapped after Microsoft said it had used their best features in its own products. Their teams of engineers stayed on, making them two of the many “acqui-hires” that the biggest companies have used to feed their great hunger for tech talent.
To Microsoft’s critics, the fates of Wunderlist and Sunrise are examples of a remorseless drive by Big Tech to chew up any innovative companies that lie in their path. “They bought the seedlings and closed them down,” complained Paul Arnold, a partner at San Francisco-based Switch Ventures, putting an end to businesses that might one turn into competitors. Microsoft declined to comment.
Like other start-up investors, Mr. Arnold’s own business often depends on selling start-ups to larger tech companies, though he admits to mixed feelings about the result: “I think these things are good for me, if I put my selfish hat on. But are they good for the American economy? I don’t know.”
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission says it wants to find the answer to that question. This week, it asked the five most valuable U.S. tech companies for information about their many small acquisitions over the past decade. Although only a research project at this stage, the request has raised the prospect of regulators wading into early-stage tech markets that until now have been beyond their reach.
Given their combined market value of more than $5.5 trillion, rifling through such small deals—many of them much less prominent than Wunderlist and Sunrise—might seem beside the point. Between them, the five tech companies have spent an average of only $3.4 billion a year on sub-$1 billion acquisitions over the past five years—a drop in the ocean compared with their massive financial reserves, and the more than $130 billion of venture capital that was invested in the U.S. last year.
However, critics say the big companies use such deals to buy their most threatening potential competitors before their businesses have a chance to gain momentum, in some cases as part of a “buy and kill” tactic to simply close them down.
31. What is true about Wunderlist and Sunrise after their acquisitions?
32. Microsoft’s critics believe that the big tech companies tend to
33. Paul Arnold is concerned that small acquisitions might
34. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission intends to
35. For the five biggest tech companies, their small acquisitions have
答案解析 (Answers & Explanations)
31. [D] Their engineers were retained.
解析：细节题。第二段首句说这两款APP后来被“废弃了（scrapped）”，排除了功能改进等。紧接着第二句指出：“他们的工程师团队留任了（Their teams of engineers stayed on），使得它们成为大公司用来满足对技术人才极大渴望的众多‘收购雇佣（acqui-hires）’案例中的两个。” “stayed on”对应选项D中的“were retained（被保留/留住）”。
32. [A] eliminate their potential competitors.
解析：细节推理题。第三段首句指出，在批评者看来，这两个应用的命运是大厂残酷驱使的例子，大厂要“吞噬任何挡在它们道路上的创新公司（chew up any innovative companies that lie in their path）”。后一句继续解释：“买下幼苗并把它们关掉……从而终结那些有朝一日可能变成竞争对手的企业”。“吞噬创新公司/关掉幼苗”本质上就是在“消灭他们的潜在竞争对手（eliminate their potential competitors）”，选A。
33. [B] harm the national economy.
解析：细节推理题。第四段末尾，风投合伙人 Paul Arnold 表达了他矛盾的心情：“如果我戴上自私的帽子，我认为这些事对我来说是好事（因为他卖公司赚钱了）。但它们对美国经济有好处吗？我不知道。” 这里的“不知道”实际上是一种深切的担忧。所以他担心小型收购可能会“损害国民经济（harm the national economy）”，选B。
34. [B] examine small acquisitions.
解析：细节题。第五段第二句明确指出：“本周，它（联邦贸易委员会）要求美国五家最有价值的科技公司提供关于它们在过去十年中众多小型收购的信息（information about their many small acquisitions over the past decade）”。要求提供信息就是在“调查小型收购（examine small acquisitions）”，选B。
35. [D] brought little financial pressure.
解析：细节推断题。第六段最后一句话给出了数据对比：五大科技巨头每年在低于10亿美元的收购上平均仅花费34亿美元——“与他们庞大的财务储备……相比，这只是沧海一粟（a drop in the ocean）”。既然只是沧海一粟（九牛一毛），说明这“几乎没有带来财务压力（brought little financial pressure）”，选D。
全文翻译
当微软在2015年收购任务管理应用Wunderlist和移动日历Sunrise时，它选择了两个在硅谷引起不小轰动的后起之秀。微软自家的Office主导着生产力软件市场，但这些初创公司代表了为智能手机世界从零开始设计的新一波技术。
然而，这两款应用后来都被废弃，微软表示已将它们的最佳功能融入自家产品。它们的工程师团队留下来了，使它们成为大型公司用来满足对技术人才巨大渴求的众多人才收购案例中的两个。
对微软的批评者来说，Wunderlist和Sunrise的命运是大型科技公司无情吞噬任何挡路的创新公司的例证。旧金山Switch Ventures的合伙人保罗·阿诺德抱怨道：他们买下了幼苗然后把它们关掉，终结了那些有朝一日可能变成竞争对手的企业。微软拒绝置评。
与其他初创投资者一样，阿诺德自己的业务往往依赖于将初创公司卖给更大的科技公司，尽管他承认对结果有复杂感受：如果我只考虑自己的私利，我认为这些事情对我有利。但它们对美国经济有利吗？我不知道。
美国联邦贸易委员会表示想找到这个问题的答案。本周，它向美国五家最有价值的科技公司索取了过去十年间众多小型收购的信息。虽然目前只是一个研究项目，但这一要求引发了监管机构涉足早期科技市场的前景，这些市场迄今为止一直超出他们的监管范围。
鉴于它们超过5.5万亿美元的总市值，翻查这些小交易——其中许多远不如Wunderlist和Sunrise引人注目——似乎无关紧要。这五家科技公司在过去五年中每年平均仅花费34亿美元用于低于10亿美元的收购——与其庞大的财务储备相比不过是沧海一粟，更不用说去年在美国投资的超过1300亿美元的风险资本了。
然而，批评者表示，大公司利用这些交易在其业务有机会获得发展势头之前就买下最具威胁性的潜在竞争对手，在某些情况下是某种买下即关停策略的一部分，直接将其关闭。
核心长难句精解 (High-Light)
1. 分词短语作状语的连续使用：
"“They bought the seedlings and closed them down,” complained Paul Arnold... putting an end to businesses that might one turn into competitors."
【解析】`putting an end to...` 是现在分词短语作结果状语，表示“买下幼苗并关掉”这一行为带来的后果：终结了潜在的竞争对手。在 businesses 后，跟了一个 `that` 引导的定语从句，修饰这些公司。
"“They bought the seedlings and closed them down,” complained Paul Arnold... putting an end to businesses that might one turn into competitors."
【解析】`putting an end to...` 是现在分词短语作结果状语，表示“买下幼苗并关掉”这一行为带来的后果：终结了潜在的竞争对手。在 businesses 后，跟了一个 `that` 引导的定语从句，修饰这些公司。
2. Although 引导的省略句与 prospect 后跟的同位语结构：
"Although only a research project at this stage, the request has raised the prospect of regulators wading into early-stage tech markets that until now have been beyond their reach."
【解析】句首的 `Although...` 是省略了主语和系动词的让步状语从句（Although it is only...）。`prospect` 后面的 `of + 动名词的复合结构（regulators wading into...）` 充当其同位语，说明前景的具体内容。最后还有一个 `that` 引导的定语从句修饰 tech markets。
"Although only a research project at this stage, the request has raised the prospect of regulators wading into early-stage tech markets that until now have been beyond their reach."
【解析】句首的 `Although...` 是省略了主语和系动词的让步状语从句（Although it is only...）。`prospect` 后面的 `of + 动名词的复合结构（regulators wading into...）` 充当其同位语，说明前景的具体内容。最后还有一个 `that` 引导的定语从句修饰 tech markets。
3. a drop in the ocean 的比喻及比较结构：
"Between them, the five tech companies have spent an average of only $3.4 billion a year on sub-$1 billion acquisitions over the past five years—a drop in the ocean compared with their massive financial reserves..."
【解析】破折号后面是同位语，也是全句的点睛之笔。作者用 `a drop in the ocean`（沧海一粟）极其形象地讽刺了科技巨头花钱“买断竞争”的成本之低，后面的 `compared with` 过去分词短语作状语进一步强化了这种财务实力的悬殊对比。
"Between them, the five tech companies have spent an average of only $3.4 billion a year on sub-$1 billion acquisitions over the past five years—a drop in the ocean compared with their massive financial reserves..."
【解析】破折号后面是同位语，也是全句的点睛之笔。作者用 `a drop in the ocean`（沧海一粟）极其形象地讽刺了科技巨头花钱“买断竞争”的成本之低，后面的 `compared with` 过去分词短语作状语进一步强化了这种财务实力的悬殊对比。