發布日期：2021-01-01 12:20:40 來源：江西中公考研}
When Microsoft bought task management app Wunderlist and mobile calendar Sunrise in 2015, it picked up 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 insatiable 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 paid to businesses that might one day 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 US Federal Trade Commission says it wants to find the answer to that question. This week, it asked the five most valuable US 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 $5.5tn, rifling through such small deals — many of them much less prominent than Wunderlist and Sunrise — might seem beside the point. Between them, the five companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook) have spent an average of only $3.4bn a year on sub-$1bn acquisitions over the past five years — a drop in the ocean compared with their massive financial reserves, and the more than $130bn of venture capital that was invested in the US last year.
However, critics say that 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 market values declined.
B. Their engineers were retained.
C. Their tech features improved.
D. Their products were re-priced.
32. Microsoft’s critics believe that the big tech companies tend to .
A. exaggerate their product quality
B. treat new tech talent unfairly
C. eliminate their potential competitors
D. ignore public opinions
33. Paul Arnold is concerned that small acquisitions might .
A. weaken big tech companies
B. worsen market competition
C. discourage start-up investors
D. harm the national economy
34. The US Federal Trade Commission intends to .
A. supervise start-ups’ operations
B. encourage research collaboration
C. limit Big Tech’s expansion
D. examine small acquisitions
35. For the five biggest tech companies, their small acquisitions have .
A. raised few management challenges
B. brought little financial pressure
C. set an example for future deals
D. generated considerable profits
31.【答案】B(Their engineers were retained.)
【解析】本題為細節題。根據題干關鍵詞Wunderlist and Sunrise定位到第一段①句和第三段①句。這兩句無法解題,需結合上下文。文章第一段引出事件：Microsoft收購Wunderlist 和Sunrise，第二段介紹這兩家初創企業被收購后所發生的事情，第三段介紹批評者對Microsoft此行為的評價。B項Their engineers were retained(他們的工程師被保留了下來)是對第二段②句中的Their teams of engineers stayed on(他們的工程師團隊留了下來)的同義替換。所以本題選B。
32.【答案】C(eliminate their potential competitors)
【解析】本題為細節題。根據題干關鍵詞Microsofts’ critics定位到第三段①句：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。C項eliminate their potential competitors(消滅他們潛在的競爭對手)是對chew up innovative companies that lie in their path(毀掉擋他們路的創新公司)的同義替換。所以本題選C。
33.【答案】D(harm the national economy)
【解析】本題為細節題。根據題干關鍵詞Paul Arnold定位到第三段②句和第四段。第三段②句指出Arnold對科技巨頭將本可以發展成為其競爭對手的初創公司扼殺在萌芽階段這一做法的不滿，第四段進一步介紹Arnold作為初創公司投資人對科技巨頭收購行為的看法。D項harm the national economy(損害國家經濟)是對第四段中的I think these things are good for me … But are they good for the American economy? I don’t know(我覺得這些對我有好處……但它們對美國經濟有好處嗎?我不知道)的合理推斷。所以本題選C。
34.【答案】D(examine small acquisitions)
【解析】本題為細節題。根據題干關鍵詞The US Federal Trade Commission定位到第五段①句，該句無法解題，繼續看下文。②句緊接著介紹US Federal Trade Commission的做法：This week, it asked the five most valuable US tech companies for information about their many small acquisitions over the past decade。D項examine small acquisitions(調查小規模收購)是對asked … for information about their many small acquisitions(向……詢問他們許多小規模收購的相關信息)的概括總結。所以本題選D。
35.【答案】B(brought little financial pressure)
【解析】本題為細節題。根據題干關鍵詞the five biggest tech companies定位到第六段②句：Between them, the five companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook) have spent an average of only $3.4bn a year on sub-$1bn acquisitions over the past five years—a drop in the ocean compared with their massive financial reserves, and the more than $130bn of venture capital that was invested in the US last year。B項brought little financial pressure(幾乎沒有帶來資金壓力)是對a drop in the ocean compared with their massive financial reserves(與他們龐大的資金儲備相比，這只是滄海一粟)的合理推斷。所以本題選B。