大陸研究所考古題
2016年考研英語(一)
- (34).Text 3
"There is one and only one social responsibility of business" wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist "That is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits." But even if you accept Friedman's premise and regard corporate social responsibility(CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders's money, things may not be absolutely clear-act. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.
The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a "signal" that a company's products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company's products as an indirect may to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse "halo effect" whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.
Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under American's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company's products as part of their investigations，they could be influenced only by the halo effect.
The study found that，among prosecuted firms，those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient penalties. Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firm's political influence, rather than their CSR stand, that accounted for the leniency: Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.
In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company's record in CSR. "We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern, such as child labour, or increasing corporate giving by about20% result in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials." says one researcher.
Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question at how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when they companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
When prosecutors evaluate a case, a company's CSR record _______. - (34).Text 3
"There is one and only one social responsibility of business" wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist "That is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits." But even if you accept Friedman's premise and regard corporate social responsibility(CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders's money, things may not be absolutely clear-act. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.
The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a "signal" that a company's products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company's products as an indirect may to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse "halo effect" whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.
Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under American's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company's products as part of their investigations，they could be influenced only by the halo effect.
The study found that，among prosecuted firms，those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient penalties. Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firm's political influence, rather than their CSR stand, that accounted for the leniency: Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.
In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company's record in CSR. "We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern, such as child labour, or increasing corporate giving by about20% result in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials." says one researcher.
Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question at how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when they companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
When prosecutors evaluate a case, a company's CSR record _______. - (34).Text 3
"There is one and only one social responsibility of business" wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist "That is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits." But even if you accept Friedman's premise and regard corporate social responsibility(CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders's money, things may not be absolutely clear-act. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.
The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a "signal" that a company's products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company's products as an indirect may to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse "halo effect" whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.
Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under American's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company's products as part of their investigations，they could be influenced only by the halo effect.
The study found that，among prosecuted firms，those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient penalties. Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firm's political influence, rather than their CSR stand, that accounted for the leniency: Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.
In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company's record in CSR. "We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern, such as child labour, or increasing corporate giving by about20% result in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials." says one researcher.
Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question at how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when they companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
When prosecutors evaluate a case, a company's CSR record _______. - (35).Text 3
"There is one and only one social responsibility of business" wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist "That is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits." But even if you accept Friedman's premise and regard corporate social responsibility(CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders's money, things may not be absolutely clear-act. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.
The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a "signal" that a company's products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company's products as an indirect may to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse "halo effect" whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.
Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under American's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company's products as part of their investigations，they could be influenced only by the halo effect.
The study found that，among prosecuted firms，those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient penalties. Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firm's political influence, rather than their CSR stand, that accounted for the leniency: Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.
In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company's record in CSR. "We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern, such as child labour, or increasing corporate giving by about20% result in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials." says one researcher.
Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question at how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when they companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
Which of the following is true of CSR according to the last paragraph? - (35).Text 3
"There is one and only one social responsibility of business" wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist "That is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits." But even if you accept Friedman's premise and regard corporate social responsibility(CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders's money, things may not be absolutely clear-act. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.
The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a "signal" that a company's products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company's products as an indirect may to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse "halo effect" whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.
Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under American's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company's products as part of their investigations，they could be influenced only by the halo effect.
The study found that，among prosecuted firms，those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient penalties. Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firm's political influence, rather than their CSR stand, that accounted for the leniency: Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.
In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company's record in CSR. "We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern, such as child labour, or increasing corporate giving by about20% result in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials." says one researcher.
Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question at how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when they companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
Which of the following is true of CSR according to the last paragraph? - (35).Text 3
"There is one and only one social responsibility of business" wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist "That is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits." But even if you accept Friedman's premise and regard corporate social responsibility(CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders's money, things may not be absolutely clear-act. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies at least when they are prosecuted for corruption.
The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a "signal" that a company's products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company's products as an indirect may to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse "halo effect" whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.
Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under American's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company's products as part of their investigations，they could be influenced only by the halo effect.
The study found that，among prosecuted firms，those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient penalties. Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firm's political influence, rather than their CSR stand, that accounted for the leniency: Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines.
In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company's record in CSR. "We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern, such as child labour, or increasing corporate giving by about20% result in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials." says one researcher.
Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question at how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when they companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
Which of the following is true of CSR according to the last paragraph? - (36).Text 4
There will eventually come a day when The New York Times ceases to publish stories on newsprint. Exactly when that day will be is a matter of debate. "Sometime in the future," the paper's publisher said back in 2010.
Nostalgia for ink on paper and the rustle of pages aside, there's plenty of incentive to ditch print. The infrastructure required to make a physical newspaper - printing presses, delivery trucks - isn't just expensive; it's excessive at a time when online - only competitors don't have the same set of financial constraints. Readers are migrating away from print anyway. And though print ad sales still dwarf their online and mobile counterparts, revenue from print is still declining.
Overhead may be high and circulation lower, but rushing to eliminate its print edition would be a mistake, says BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti.
Peretti says the Times shouldn't waste time getting out of the print business, but only if they go about doing it the right way. "Figuring out a way to accelerate that transition would make sense for them," he said, "but if you discontinue it, you're going have your most loyal customers really upset with you."
Sometimes that's worth making a change anyway. Peretti gives the example of Netflix discontinuing its DVD-mailing service to focus on streaming. "It was seen as blunder," he said. The move turned out to be foresighted. And if Peretti were in charge at the Times? "I wouldn't pick a year to end print," he said "I would raise prices and make it into more of a legacy product."
The most loyal customers would still get the product they favor, the idea goes, and they'd feel like they were helping sustain the quality of something they believe in. "So if you're overpaying for print, you could feel like you were helping," Peretti said. "Then increase it at a higher rate each year and essentially try to generate additional revenue." In other words, if you're going to make a print product, make it for the people who are already obsessed with it. Which may be what the Times is doing already. Getting the print edition seven days a week costs nearly $500 a year - more than twice as much as a digital - only subscription.
"It's a really hard thing to do and it's a tremendous luxury that BuzzFeed doesn't have a legacy business," Peretti remarked. "But we're going to have questions like that where we have things we're doing that don't make sense when the market changes and the world changes. In those situations, it's better to be more aggressive that less aggressive."
The New York Times is considering ending it's print edition partly due to ______. - (36).Text 4
There will eventually come a day when The New York Times ceases to publish stories on newsprint. Exactly when that day will be is a matter of debate. "Sometime in the future," the paper's publisher said back in 2010.
Nostalgia for ink on paper and the rustle of pages aside, there's plenty of incentive to ditch print. The infrastructure required to make a physical newspaper - printing presses, delivery trucks - isn't just expensive; it's excessive at a time when online - only competitors don't have the same set of financial constraints. Readers are migrating away from print anyway. And though print ad sales still dwarf their online and mobile counterparts, revenue from print is still declining.
Overhead may be high and circulation lower, but rushing to eliminate its print edition would be a mistake, says BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti.
Peretti says the Times shouldn't waste time getting out of the print business, but only if they go about doing it the right way. "Figuring out a way to accelerate that transition would make sense for them," he said, "but if you discontinue it, you're going have your most loyal customers really upset with you."
Sometimes that's worth making a change anyway. Peretti gives the example of Netflix discontinuing its DVD-mailing service to focus on streaming. "It was seen as blunder," he said. The move turned out to be foresighted. And if Peretti were in charge at the Times? "I wouldn't pick a year to end print," he said "I would raise prices and make it into more of a legacy product."
The most loyal customers would still get the product they favor, the idea goes, and they'd feel like they were helping sustain the quality of something they believe in. "So if you're overpaying for print, you could feel like you were helping," Peretti said. "Then increase it at a higher rate each year and essentially try to generate additional revenue." In other words, if you're going to make a print product, make it for the people who are already obsessed with it. Which may be what the Times is doing already. Getting the print edition seven days a week costs nearly $500 a year - more than twice as much as a digital - only subscription.
"It's a really hard thing to do and it's a tremendous luxury that BuzzFeed doesn't have a legacy business," Peretti remarked. "But we're going to have questions like that where we have things we're doing that don't make sense when the market changes and the world changes. In those situations, it's better to be more aggressive that less aggressive."
The New York Times is considering ending it's print edition partly due to ______. - (36).Text 4
There will eventually come a day when The New York Times ceases to publish stories on newsprint. Exactly when that day will be is a matter of debate. "Sometime in the future," the paper's publisher said back in 2010.
Nostalgia for ink on paper and the rustle of pages aside, there's plenty of incentive to ditch print. The infrastructure required to make a physical newspaper - printing presses, delivery trucks - isn't just expensive; it's excessive at a time when online - only competitors don't have the same set of financial constraints. Readers are migrating away from print anyway. And though print ad sales still dwarf their online and mobile counterparts, revenue from print is still declining.
Overhead may be high and circulation lower, but rushing to eliminate its print edition would be a mistake, says BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti.
Peretti says the Times shouldn't waste time getting out of the print business, but only if they go about doing it the right way. "Figuring out a way to accelerate that transition would make sense for them," he said, "but if you discontinue it, you're going have your most loyal customers really upset with you."
Sometimes that's worth making a change anyway. Peretti gives the example of Netflix discontinuing its DVD-mailing service to focus on streaming. "It was seen as blunder," he said. The move turned out to be foresighted. And if Peretti were in charge at the Times? "I wouldn't pick a year to end print," he said "I would raise prices and make it into more of a legacy product."
The most loyal customers would still get the product they favor, the idea goes, and they'd feel like they were helping sustain the quality of something they believe in. "So if you're overpaying for print, you could feel like you were helping," Peretti said. "Then increase it at a higher rate each year and essentially try to generate additional revenue." In other words, if you're going to make a print product, make it for the people who are already obsessed with it. Which may be what the Times is doing already. Getting the print edition seven days a week costs nearly $500 a year - more than twice as much as a digital - only subscription.
"It's a really hard thing to do and it's a tremendous luxury that BuzzFeed doesn't have a legacy business," Peretti remarked. "But we're going to have questions like that where we have things we're doing that don't make sense when the market changes and the world changes. In those situations, it's better to be more aggressive that less aggressive."
The New York Times is considering ending it's print edition partly due to ______. - (37).Text 4
There will eventually come a day when The New York Times ceases to publish stories on newsprint. Exactly when that day will be is a matter of debate. "Sometime in the future," the paper's publisher said back in 2010.
Nostalgia for ink on paper and the rustle of pages aside, there's plenty of incentive to ditch print. The infrastructure required to make a physical newspaper - printing presses, delivery trucks - isn't just expensive; it's excessive at a time when online - only competitors don't have the same set of financial constraints. Readers are migrating away from print anyway. And though print ad sales still dwarf their online and mobile counterparts, revenue from print is still declining.
Overhead may be high and circulation lower, but rushing to eliminate its print edition would be a mistake, says BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti.
Peretti says the Times shouldn't waste time getting out of the print business, but only if they go about doing it the right way. "Figuring out a way to accelerate that transition would make sense for them," he said, "but if you discontinue it, you're going have your most loyal customers really upset with you."
Sometimes that's worth making a change anyway. Peretti gives the example of Netflix discontinuing its DVD-mailing service to focus on streaming. "It was seen as blunder," he said. The move turned out to be foresighted. And if Peretti were in charge at the Times? "I wouldn't pick a year to end print," he said "I would raise prices and make it into more of a legacy product."
The most loyal customers would still get the product they favor, the idea goes, and they'd feel like they were helping sustain the quality of something they believe in. "So if you're overpaying for print, you could feel like you were helping," Peretti said. "Then increase it at a higher rate each year and essentially try to generate additional revenue." In other words, if you're going to make a print product, make it for the people who are already obsessed with it. Which may be what the Times is doing already. Getting the print edition seven days a week costs nearly $500 a year - more than twice as much as a digital - only subscription.
"It's a really hard thing to do and it's a tremendous luxury that BuzzFeed doesn't have a legacy business," Peretti remarked. "But we're going to have questions like that where we have things we're doing that don't make sense when the market changes and the world changes. In those situations, it's better to be more aggressive that less aggressive."
Peretti suggests that in face of the present situation, The Times should ______. - (37).Text 4
There will eventually come a day when The New York Times ceases to publish stories on newsprint. Exactly when that day will be is a matter of debate. "Sometime in the future," the paper's publisher said back in 2010.
Nostalgia for ink on paper and the rustle of pages aside, there's plenty of incentive to ditch print. The infrastructure required to make a physical newspaper - printing presses, delivery trucks - isn't just expensive; it's excessive at a time when online - only competitors don't have the same set of financial constraints. Readers are migrating away from print anyway. And though print ad sales still dwarf their online and mobile counterparts, revenue from print is still declining.
Overhead may be high and circulation lower, but rushing to eliminate its print edition would be a mistake, says BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti.
Peretti says the Times shouldn't waste time getting out of the print business, but only if they go about doing it the right way. "Figuring out a way to accelerate that transition would make sense for them," he said, "but if you discontinue it, you're going have your most loyal customers really upset with you."
Sometimes that's worth making a change anyway. Peretti gives the example of Netflix discontinuing its DVD-mailing service to focus on streaming. "It was seen as blunder," he said. The move turned out to be foresighted. And if Peretti were in charge at the Times? "I wouldn't pick a year to end print," he said "I would raise prices and make it into more of a legacy product."
The most loyal customers would still get the product they favor, the idea goes, and they'd feel like they were helping sustain the quality of something they believe in. "So if you're overpaying for print, you could feel like you were helping," Peretti said. "Then increase it at a higher rate each year and essentially try to generate additional revenue." In other words, if you're going to make a print product, make it for the people who are already obsessed with it. Which may be what the Times is doing already. Getting the print edition seven days a week costs nearly $500 a year - more than twice as much as a digital - only subscription.
"It's a really hard thing to do and it's a tremendous luxury that BuzzFeed doesn't have a legacy business," Peretti remarked. "But we're going to have questions like that where we have things we're doing that don't make sense when the market changes and the world changes. In those situations, it's better to be more aggressive that less aggressive."
Peretti suggests that in face of the present situation, The Times should ______. - (37).Text 4
There will eventually come a day when The New York Times ceases to publish stories on newsprint. Exactly when that day will be is a matter of debate. "Sometime in the future," the paper's publisher said back in 2010.
Nostalgia for ink on paper and the rustle of pages aside, there's plenty of incentive to ditch print. The infrastructure required to make a physical newspaper - printing presses, delivery trucks - isn't just expensive; it's excessive at a time when online - only competitors don't have the same set of financial constraints. Readers are migrating away from print anyway. And though print ad sales still dwarf their online and mobile counterparts, revenue from print is still declining.
Overhead may be high and circulation lower, but rushing to eliminate its print edition would be a mistake, says BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti.
Peretti says the Times shouldn't waste time getting out of the print business, but only if they go about doing it the right way. "Figuring out a way to accelerate that transition would make sense for them," he said, "but if you discontinue it, you're going have your most loyal customers really upset with you."
Sometimes that's worth making a change anyway. Peretti gives the example of Netflix discontinuing its DVD-mailing service to focus on streaming. "It was seen as blunder," he said. The move turned out to be foresighted. And if Peretti were in charge at the Times? "I wouldn't pick a year to end print," he said "I would raise prices and make it into more of a legacy product."
The most loyal customers would still get the product they favor, the idea goes, and they'd feel like they were helping sustain the quality of something they believe in. "So if you're overpaying for print, you could feel like you were helping," Peretti said. "Then increase it at a higher rate each year and essentially try to generate additional revenue." In other words, if you're going to make a print product, make it for the people who are already obsessed with it. Which may be what the Times is doing already. Getting the print edition seven days a week costs nearly $500 a year - more than twice as much as a digital - only subscription.
"It's a really hard thing to do and it's a tremendous luxury that BuzzFeed doesn't have a legacy business," Peretti remarked. "But we're going to have questions like that where we have things we're doing that don't make sense when the market changes and the world changes. In those situations, it's better to be more aggressive that less aggressive."
Peretti suggests that in face of the present situation, The Times should ______.
单项选择题
@1@.comes across as reliable evidence
@2@.has an impact on their decision
@3@.increases the chance of being penalized
@4@.constitutes part of the investigation
单项选择题
@1@.comes across as reliable evidence
@2@.has an impact on their decision
@3@.increases the chance of being penalized
@4@.constitutes part of the investigation
单项选择题
@1@.comes across as reliable evidence
@2@.has an impact on their decision
@3@.increases the chance of being penalized
@4@.constitutes part of the investigation
单项选择题
@1@.The necessary amount of companies spending on it is unknown
@2@.Companies' financial capacity for it has been overestimated
@3@.Its negative effects on businesses are often overlooked
@4@.It has brought much benefit to the banking industry
单项选择题
@1@.The necessary amount of companies spending on it is unknown
@2@.Companies' financial capacity for it has been overestimated
@3@.Its negative effects on businesses are often overlooked
@4@.It has brought much benefit to the banking industry
单项选择题
@1@.The necessary amount of companies spending on it is unknown
@2@.Companies' financial capacity for it has been overestimated
@3@.Its negative effects on businesses are often overlooked
@4@.It has brought much benefit to the banking industry
单项选择题
@1@.the increasing online and sales
@2@.the pressure from its investors
@3@.the complaints from its readers
@4@.the high cost of operation
单项选择题
@1@.the increasing online and sales
@2@.the pressure from its investors
@3@.the complaints from its readers
@4@.the high cost of operation
单项选择题
@1@.the increasing online and sales
@2@.the pressure from its investors
@3@.the complaints from its readers
@4@.the high cost of operation
单项选择题
@1@.make strategic adjustments
@2@.end the print sedition for good
@3@.seek new sources of leadership
@4@.aim for efficient management
单项选择题
@1@.make strategic adjustments
@2@.end the print sedition for good
@3@.seek new sources of leadership
@4@.aim for efficient management
单项选择题
@1@.make strategic adjustments
@2@.end the print sedition for good
@3@.seek new sources of leadership
@4@.aim for efficient management
官方未公告考題，本平台僅供學員參考！