Text 1 They are falling like dominoes.Executives caught behaving badly might once have been slapped on the wrist.Today they are shown the door.On July 19th Paramount Television fired its president,Amy Powell,over reports of insensitive comments about race.This is only the latest bigwig to go in a line of departures linked to"personal misconduct"."Boards are now holding executives to higher standards,looking not just at how they treat people but also how they talk to and about them,"says Pam Jeffords of Mercer,a consultancy.The thread connecting these incidents is that all are about perceptions of executive integrity,and by extension,trust.Since trust violations are particularly hard for firms to overcome,often more so than incompetence,firms may believe that firing an errant executive can be the safest,most pragmatic course of action.Executives were never alt angels.What has changed is that boards are now far less willing to overlook bad behaviour for the sake of superior performance.A 2017 report from PwC,a professional-services firm,found that the share of chief-executive dismissals that were due to ethical lapses increased between 2007-11 and 2012-2016,not because bosses were behaving worse but because they were held more accountable.Boards seem to be acting thus for two reasons.First,to protect employees and create a safe and inclusive work environment.Second,to protect their brands'reputations.A 2016 study from researchers at Stanford showed that the fallout from chief executives behaving badly,but not unlawfully,was large and lasting.On average each of the 38 incidents studied garnered 250 news stories,with media attention lasting 4.9 years.Shares usually suffered,though not always.And in a third of cases firms faced further damage,including loss of major clients and federal investigations.Should an executive's words be judged as harshly as their actions?From the perspective of protecting the brand,as well as discouraging a toxic work environment,they probably should.The power of social media to turn a whispered comment into a Twitterstorm,and the fact that everyone now has a mobile recording device,demands a decisive response.But boards and the media also risk rushing to judgment and painting the wicked with too broad a brush.An insensitive remark made long ago or as a one-off is not the same as one made as the face of the firm or as part of a consistent pattern.Disney's firing of James Gunn,a director,last week over tweets from a decade ago,before he was hired and for which he has apologised,seems to be one instance in which such distinctions have been papered over.And plenty of companies benefit from environments where people can speak openly and brainstorm out loud.Once the fallen dominos have been counted,some firms may turn out to have been too gung-ho in responding to the"Weinstein effect".Many,perhaps most,exits will be justified.But all?The author's attitude towards James Gunn can be described as——A.criticalB.sympatheticC.contemptuousD.appreciative
Text 1 They are falling like dominoes.Executives caught behaving badly might once have been slapped on the wrist.Today they are shown the door.On July 19th Paramount Television fired its president,Amy Powell,over reports of insensitive comments about race.This is only the latest bigwig to go in a line of departures linked to"personal misconduct"."Boards are now holding executives to higher standards,looking not just at how they treat people but also how they talk to and about them,"says Pam Jeffords of Mercer,a consultancy.The thread connecting these incidents is that all are about perceptions of executive integrity,and by extension,trust.Since trust violations are particularly hard for firms to overcome,often more so than incompetence,firms may believe that firing an errant executive can be the safest,most pragmatic course of action.Executives were never alt angels.What has changed is that boards are now far less willing to overlook bad behaviour for the sake of superior performance.A 2017 report from PwC,a professional-services firm,found that the share of chief-executive dismissals that were due to ethical lapses increased between 2007-11 and 2012-2016,not because bosses were behaving worse but because they were held more accountable.Boards seem to be acting thus for two reasons.First,to protect employees and create a safe and inclusive work environment.Second,to protect their brands'reputations.A 2016 study from researchers at Stanford showed that the fallout from chief executives behaving badly,but not unlawfully,was large and lasting.On average each of the 38 incidents studied garnered 250 news stories,with media attention lasting 4.9 years.Shares usually suffered,though not always.And in a third of cases firms faced further damage,including loss of major clients and federal investigations.Should an executive's words be judged as harshly as their actions?From the perspective of protecting the brand,as well as discouraging a toxic work environment,they probably should.The power of social media to turn a whispered comment into a Twitterstorm,and the fact that everyone now has a mobile recording device,demands a decisive response.But boards and the media also risk rushing to judgment and painting the wicked with too broad a brush.An insensitive remark made long ago or as a one-off is not the same as one made as the face of the firm or as part of a consistent pattern.Disney's firing of James Gunn,a director,last week over tweets from a decade ago,before he was hired and for which he has apologised,seems to be one instance in which such distinctions have been papered over.And plenty of companies benefit from environments where people can speak openly and brainstorm out loud.Once the fallen dominos have been counted,some firms may turn out to have been too gung-ho in responding to the"Weinstein effect".Many,perhaps most,exits will be justified.But all?
The author's attitude towards James Gunn can be described as——
The author's attitude towards James Gunn can be described as——
A.critical
B.sympathetic
C.contemptuous
D.appreciative
B.sympathetic
C.contemptuous
D.appreciative
参考解析
解析：【信息锁定】第六段首先发表观点：董事会和媒体的判断可能过于草率，将太多的高管界定为行为不端。而实际上“很久以前说过的、或者仅仅说过一次的不当言论”并不等同于“代表公司形象的、或者作为一贯模式的不当言论”。随后指出James Gunn事例：James Gunn被解雇的原因是10年前尚未为迪士尼工作时发布的、而且他早已为之道歉的一条推特。最后作者再次评论：这一事例说明上述区分被掩盖。可见作者以为James Gunn错不至被开除，对其持同情态度．B.正确。【解题技巧】解答此题的关键在于结合上下文整体看待事例、并明确作者态度。假如我们只注意到James Gunn确实言论不当（insensitive remark），则可能认为作者对其持批判或鄙视态度，从而选A.或C.。若只注意到他主动就自己的不当言论道歉（has apologized），且对随后一句（企业受益于员工畅所欲言，集思广益的环境）过度推理为“James Gunn不当言论只是在为公司畅所欲肓、集思广益中出现的小问题”，则很可能认为作者对其持“赞同．欣赏”态度，从而误选D.。
相关考题：
As soon as I () the tools, I shall begin with the work. A.haveB.am havingC.have been havingD.have been had
I am not sure how long they _____. A.have marriedB.have been marriedC.have got marriedD.married
What is Wilmington like now?A．It's a prosperous city.B．It has many veterans of war.C．Its pretty buildings have been torn down.D．It is no longer an agreeable place.
I have been convinced that the print media are usually more and more reliable than television.A．accurateB．ridiculousC．urgentD．shallow
Strict _____________ measures have been taken during the President's visit. A.secureB.securityC.safeD.save
If you're going to the club tonight, you ( ) Richard there. A、might meetB、might have metC、may have metD、may have been met
If they ____ earlier than expected, they ____ here now. A. had started, would beB. started, might beC. had started, would have beenD. will start, might have been
If only it ()so cold, perhaps I, too, ()more initiative.A、had been,have shownB、have been,would showC、had’t been,cound't have shownD、had't been,could have shown
Great quantities of fish ______ in the river in the past few days. A. is caughtB. are caughtC. has been caughtD. have been caught
We can infer from Paragraph 5 that ______.（ ）[A] home prices has fallen down 28% compared with what's in mid-2006[B] many foreclosed homes have been abandoned by their former owners[C] home prices might fall down 28% fi'om their peak in mid-2006 in the future[D] more foreclosed homes have been abandoned because of the falling price
Text 1 They are falling like dominoes.Executives caught behaving badly might once have been slapped on the wrist.Today they are shown the door.On July 19th Paramount Television fired its president,Amy Powell,over reports of insensitive comments about race.This is only the latest bigwig to go in a line of departures linked to"personal misconduct"."Boards are now holding executives to higher standards,looking not just at how they treat people but also how they talk to and about them,"says Pam Jeffords of Mercer,a consultancy.The thread connecting these incidents is that all are about perceptions of executive integrity,and by extension,trust.Since trust violations are particularly hard for firms to overcome,often more so than incompetence,firms may believe that firing an errant executive can be the safest,most pragmatic course of action.Executives were never alt angels.What has changed is that boards are now far less willing to overlook bad behaviour for the sake of superior performance.A 2017 report from PwC,a professional-services firm,found that the share of chief-executive dismissals that were due to ethical lapses increased between 2007-11 and 2012-2016,not because bosses were behaving worse but because they were held more accountable.Boards seem to be acting thus for two reasons.First,to protect employees and create a safe and inclusive work environment.Second,to protect their brands'reputations.A 2016 study from researchers at Stanford showed that the fallout from chief executives behaving badly,but not unlawfully,was large and lasting.On average each of the 38 incidents studied garnered 250 news stories,with media attention lasting 4.9 years.Shares usually suffered,though not always.And in a third of cases firms faced further damage,including loss of major clients and federal investigations.Should an executive's words be judged as harshly as their actions?From the perspective of protecting the brand,as well as discouraging a toxic work environment,they probably should.The power of social media to turn a whispered comment into a Twitterstorm,and the fact that everyone now has a mobile recording device,demands a decisive response.But boards and the media also risk rushing to judgment and painting the wicked with too broad a brush.An insensitive remark made long ago or as a one-off is not the same as one made as the face of the firm or as part of a consistent pattern.Disney's firing of James Gunn,a director,last week over tweets from a decade ago,before he was hired and for which he has apologised,seems to be one instance in which such distinctions have been papered over.And plenty of companies benefit from environments where people can speak openly and brainstorm out loud.Once the fallen dominos have been counted,some firms may turn out to have been too gung-ho in responding to the"Weinstein effect".Many,perhaps most,exits will be justified.But all?Boards today value most executives_____A.communication skillsB.professional competenceC.moral rntegrityD.loyalty to the company
Text 1 They are falling like dominoes.Executives caught behaving badly might once have been slapped on the wrist.Today they are shown the door.On July 19th Paramount Television fired its president,Amy Powell,over reports of insensitive comments about race.This is only the latest bigwig to go in a line of departures linked to"personal misconduct"."Boards are now holding executives to higher standards,looking not just at how they treat people but also how they talk to and about them,"says Pam Jeffords of Mercer,a consultancy.The thread connecting these incidents is that all are about perceptions of executive integrity,and by extension,trust.Since trust violations are particularly hard for firms to overcome,often more so than incompetence,firms may believe that firing an errant executive can be the safest,most pragmatic course of action.Executives were never alt angels.What has changed is that boards are now far less willing to overlook bad behaviour for the sake of superior performance.A 2017 report from PwC,a professional-services firm,found that the share of chief-executive dismissals that were due to ethical lapses increased between 2007-11 and 2012-2016,not because bosses were behaving worse but because they were held more accountable.Boards seem to be acting thus for two reasons.First,to protect employees and create a safe and inclusive work environment.Second,to protect their brands'reputations.A 2016 study from researchers at Stanford showed that the fallout from chief executives behaving badly,but not unlawfully,was large and lasting.On average each of the 38 incidents studied garnered 250 news stories,with media attention lasting 4.9 years.Shares usually suffered,though not always.And in a third of cases firms faced further damage,including loss of major clients and federal investigations.Should an executive's words be judged as harshly as their actions?From the perspective of protecting the brand,as well as discouraging a toxic work environment,they probably should.The power of social media to turn a whispered comment into a Twitterstorm,and the fact that everyone now has a mobile recording device,demands a decisive response.But boards and the media also risk rushing to judgment and painting the wicked with too broad a brush.An insensitive remark made long ago or as a one-off is not the same as one made as the face of the firm or as part of a consistent pattern.Disney's firing of James Gunn,a director,last week over tweets from a decade ago,before he was hired and for which he has apologised,seems to be one instance in which such distinctions have been papered over.And plenty of companies benefit from environments where people can speak openly and brainstorm out loud.Once the fallen dominos have been counted,some firms may turn out to have been too gung-ho in responding to the"Weinstein effect".Many,perhaps most,exits will be justified.But all?We can infer from Paragraphs 4 and 5 that——A.many executives behaved badly because of their eagerness to protect brand reputationB.only a small percentage of the stories about executives have been proved trueC.a firm may suffer heavy losses due to an insensitive remark from its executivesD.social media is encouraging misconducts among chief executives with its great power
Text 1 They are falling like dominoes.Executives caught behaving badly might once have been slapped on the wrist.Today they are shown the door.On July 19th Paramount Television fired its president,Amy Powell,over reports of insensitive comments about race.This is only the latest bigwig to go in a line of departures linked to"personal misconduct"."Boards are now holding executives to higher standards,looking not just at how they treat people but also how they talk to and about them,"says Pam Jeffords of Mercer,a consultancy.The thread connecting these incidents is that all are about perceptions of executive integrity,and by extension,trust.Since trust violations are particularly hard for firms to overcome,often more so than incompetence,firms may believe that firing an errant executive can be the safest,most pragmatic course of action.Executives were never alt angels.What has changed is that boards are now far less willing to overlook bad behaviour for the sake of superior performance.A 2017 report from PwC,a professional-services firm,found that the share of chief-executive dismissals that were due to ethical lapses increased between 2007-11 and 2012-2016,not because bosses were behaving worse but because they were held more accountable.Boards seem to be acting thus for two reasons.First,to protect employees and create a safe and inclusive work environment.Second,to protect their brands'reputations.A 2016 study from researchers at Stanford showed that the fallout from chief executives behaving badly,but not unlawfully,was large and lasting.On average each of the 38 incidents studied garnered 250 news stories,with media attention lasting 4.9 years.Shares usually suffered,though not always.And in a third of cases firms faced further damage,including loss of major clients and federal investigations.Should an executive's words be judged as harshly as their actions?From the perspective of protecting the brand,as well as discouraging a toxic work environment,they probably should.The power of social media to turn a whispered comment into a Twitterstorm,and the fact that everyone now has a mobile recording device,demands a decisive response.But boards and the media also risk rushing to judgment and painting the wicked with too broad a brush.An insensitive remark made long ago or as a one-off is not the same as one made as the face of the firm or as part of a consistent pattern.Disney's firing of James Gunn,a director,last week over tweets from a decade ago,before he was hired and for which he has apologised,seems to be one instance in which such distinctions have been papered over.And plenty of companies benefit from environments where people can speak openly and brainstorm out loud.Once the fallen dominos have been counted,some firms may turn out to have been too gung-ho in responding to the"Weinstein effect".Many,perhaps most,exits will be justified.But all?The phrase"slapped on the wrist"（Line 2,Para.1）is closest in meaning to_____A.given an easy penaltyB.forced to resignC.despised by the publicD.arrested by the police
The number of the disabled Americans went up for so long that the trend of falling out of the labor force seemed like it might be______。A.adequateB.concreteC.practicalD.permanent
If the doctor had been available, the child （）A、would not dieB、could not have diedC、might not dieD、should not have died
--Are you free in July? --No, I（）with my parents in July.A、stayB、stayedC、have stayedD、am staying
Your products（）so well here but for a lot of advertisements we have done on television and in newspapers.A、would not have been soldB、won’t sellC、would not sellD、have not been sold
单选题Mordecai finds it hard to understand that some movies were filmed in black and white but are now shown on television in colorAwhite but are now shown on television in colorBwhite, but they are now shown as color on televisionCwhite, and have since been shown as color on televisionDwhite, since showing in color on televisionEwhite, but they have since shown color on television
单选题Your products（）so well here but for a lot of advertisements we have done on television and in newspapers.Awould not have been soldBwon’t sellCwould not sellDhave not been sold
单选题What has happened to housing prices recently?AThey have been rising quickly.BThey have been falling quickly.CThey have stopped rising quickly.DThey have stopped falling quickly.
单选题Once more I have to leave Beijing, _____ I have been living for eight years.AThatBwhereCwhichDas
单选题The demonstrations ______.Awhich once supported Andry Rajoelina have been replaced by the ones against himBare spreading nationwideCare being cracked down by the militaryDshow most people in Madagascar don’t accept the new president