年9月高口上半場閱讀第四篇解析

高口閱讀選擇題第四篇解析

Question 16-20

第四篇文章不論是結構上還是出題角度方面都與第一篇文章頗爲類似。不同的是，這一篇文章內容比較簡單，論述層次也比較清晰。本文選自《商業週刊》，全文778字。

The month of January offered those who track the ups and downs of the U.S. economy 92 significant data releases and announcements to digest. That's according to a calendar compiled by the investment bank UBS. The number doesn't include corporate earnings, data from abroad or informal indicators like, say, cardboard prices (a favorite of Alan Greenspan's back in the day) was not always thus. "One reads with dismay of Presidents Hoover and then Roosevelt designing policies to combat the Great Depression of the 1930s on the basis of such sketchy data as stock price indices, freight car loadings, and incomplete indices of industrial production," writes the University of North Carolina's Richard Froyen in his macroeconomics textbook.

首段仍然以例證入手，同樣在結尾處出現考點，並需要將重點放在下文。本段講述今天的經濟危機與1930年大蕭條時期的差異之一就是，人們創造出了更多的經濟數據，並逐一加以分析。題中問道這個例子說明的道理是什麼？答案就在例子結尾的下文。

But that was then. The Depression inspired the creation of new measures like gross domestic product. (It was gross national product back in those days, but the basic idea is the same.) Wartime planning needs and advances in statistical techniques led to another big round of data improvements in the 1940s. And in recent decades, private firms and associations aiming to serve the investment community have added lots of reports and indexes of their own. Taken as a whole, this profusion of data surely has increased our understanding of the economy and its ebb and flow. It doesn't seem to have made us any better at predicting the future, though; perhaps that would be too much to ask. But what is troubling at a time like this, with the economy on everyone's mind, is how misleading many economic indicators can be about the present.

第二段開頭用時間狀語進行了對比： that was then… in recent decades…but what is troubling at a time like this…到這裏，文章的鋪墊部分才最終結束，主題清楚的展開：本文論述的是how misleading many economic indicators can be about the PRESENT.即經濟指標對經濟現狀有多大的誤導作用？在這裏，作者明確指出，指標的確有誤導性。

Consider October, the Commerce Department announced — to rejoicing in the media, on Wall Street and in the White House — that the economy had grown at a 3.5% annual pace in the third quarter. By late December, GDP had been revised downward to a less impressive 2.2%, and revisions to come could ratchet it down even more (or revise it back up). The first fourth-quarter GDP stimate comes out Jan. 29. Some are saying it could top 5%. If it does, should we really believe it?

Or take jobs. In early December, the Labor Department's monthly report surprised on the upside — and brought lots of upbeat headlines — with employers reporting only 11,000 jobs lost and the unemployment rate dropping from 10.2% to 10%. A month later, the surprise was in the other direction — unemployment had held steady, but employers reported 85,000 fewer jobs. Suddenly the headlines were downbeat, and pundits were pontificating about the political implications of a stalled labor market. Chances are, the disparity between the two reports was mostly statistical noise. Those who read great meaning into either were deceiving themselves. It is a classic case of information overload making it hard to see the trends and patterns that matter. In other words, we might be better off paying less (or at least less frequent) attention to data.

以上兩段中，舉了兩個很詳細的例子：GDP 與就業問題。分別除了兩個題目，都屬於例子功能題。其中一題問：關於GDP的不同數據說明什麼？從上文的misleading 一詞可以看出，應該說明的是數據經常是not convincing 或not reliable.

另一題問到：關於失業率的兩份報告說明什麼？與上一題幾乎是一樣的答法。

With that in mind, I asked a few of my favorite economic forecasters to name an indicator or two that I could afford to start ignoring. Three said they disregarded the index of leading indicators, originally devised at the Commerce Department but now compiled by the Conference Board, a business group. Forecasters want new hard data, and the index "consists entirely of already released information and the Conference Board's forecasts," says Jan Hatzius of Goldman Sachs. (The leading-indicators index topped a similar survey by the Chicago Tribune in 2005, it turns out.) The monthly employment estimate put out by payroll-service firm ADP got two demerits, mainly because it doesn't do a great job of predicting the Labor Department employment numbers that are released two days later. And consumer-sentiment indexes, which offer the tantalizing prospect of predicting future spending patterns but often function more like an echo chamber, got the thumbs-down from two more forecasters.

本段開頭告訴我們，頂尖經濟學家一般會選擇忽略哪些經濟指標，一系列的並列結構過後，結尾句出現考點：thumbs-down.在這裏顯然也是“忽略”的意思。在這裏，有兩個選項可能會使考生迷惑 disapproval 還是strong criticism? 後一項顯然是闡述過度了。

The thing is, I already ignore all these (relatively minor) indicators. I had been hoping to learn I could skip GDP or the employment report. I should have known that professional forecasters wouldn't forgo real data. As Mark Zandi of Moody's put it in an e-mail, "I cherish all economic indicators."

Most of us aren't professional forecasters. What should we make of the cacophony of monthly and weekly data? The obvious advice is to focus on trends and ignore the noise. But the most important economic moments come when trends reverse — when what appears to be noise is really a sign that the world has changed. Which is why, in these uncertain times, we jump whenever a new economic number comes out. Even one that will be revised in a month.

最後一段考察了段義。很顯然，本段的重點在於but 引導的轉折句上：經濟轉折事件往往是逆潮流而動的——這時，原來的“noise”即干擾性指標也會具有說服力。