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?

[A]

Their products were re-priced. 

[B]

Their market values declined. 

[C]

Their tech features improved. 

[D]

Their engineers were retained. 

32. Microsoft’s critics believe that the big tech companies tend to

[A]

eliminate their potential competitors. 

[B]

exaggerate their product quality. 

[C]

treat new tech talent unfairly. 

[D]

ignore public opinions. 

33. Paul Arnold is concerned that small acquisitions might

[A]

weaken big tech companies. 

[B]

harm the national economy. 

[C]

worsen market competition. 

[D]

discourage start-up investors. 

34. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission intends to

[A]

limit Big Tech’s expansion. 

[B]

examine small acquisitions. 

[C]

encourage research collaboration. 

[D]

supervise start-ups’ operations. 

35. For the five biggest tech companies, their small acquisitions have

[A]

generated considerable profits. 

[B]

raised few management challenges. 

[C]

set an example for future deals. 

[D]

brought little financial pressure. 

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。

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。

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。

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。