2022 年 12 月大学英语六级考试真题（第 2 套）

The task of the global strategist of a business is to build a platform of capabilities derived from the resources, experiences and innovations of units operating in multiple locations, to transplant those capabilities wherever __26__, and then to systematically upgrade and renew them—ahead of the competition.

Apple is an outstanding case of a company whose unique capabilities give it a worldwide __27__ advantage, particularly with respect to its ability to build platforms from a product base that integrates functional and __28__ design. Apple has been able to leverage and exploit its California-based design and marketing advantages successfully throughout the world. IKEA is another such case. The do-it-yourself furniture and houseware company first developed a compelling set of capabilities to design, manufacture and __29__ furniture at low cost and sell it in a novel way in Sweden. Later, IKEA successfully __30__ this formula in many other countries.

By contrast, Telefonica, a Spanish telecommunications company that is now the world's fifth largest telecom by __31__, first developed its special advantage abroad. In 1989 and 1990, Telefonica had the opportunity to enter Chile and Argentina, countries that shared many institutional and cultural characteristics with its home country but that were __32__ more rapid market reform. Throughout the 1990s, Telefonica took what it learned in Chile and Argentina about reconstructing former state-owned telecoms to other Latin American countries that were privatizing their state telecoms and deregulating their telecom markets.

These examples might lead the reader to believe that creating a global advantage is an easy task. But many other __33__ of expensive failed experiments suggest that creating a lasting global advantage actually requires a great deal of __34__ and operational finesse (技巧). Our research suggests that global winners typically create and sustain their international presence through a systematic process of __35__, renewing and enhancing their core capabilities.

Some people in the US have asserted that forgiving student loan debt is one way to stimulate the economy and give assistance to those in need. One government proposition is to eliminate $ 10,000 of debt for 4 economically distressed? students. Some in US Congress have gone so far as to suggest forgiving up to $ 50,000 in debt per student borrower, but does forgiving student debt necessarily correlate to helping the economically disadvantaged?

The answer is no. This policy is just giving money away to universities and the most affluent students in attendance. Federal Reserve data reveals that the highest-income 40 percent of households owe approximately 60 percent of outstanding student debt, while the lowest 40 percent owe just under 20 percent. This could be due to a combination of factors: students from high-income households are more likely to go to expensive colleges, less likely to receive financial aid, and more likely to have high incomes post-graduation. Plus, the majority of student debt is held by graduate degree earners, who earn approximately 25 percent more than their undergraduate counterparts. Clearly, giving free reign to banks to forgive student debt is a step in the wrong direction.

Other proposals for broader, long-term student loan plans have some fundamental problems. One idea is to cancel student debt only for undergraduate degrees and for students making less than $125,000.

This attempts to address the fact that Congress' previously mentioned student loan forgiveness plan largely helps out the wealthy, but is an adverse incentive for universities to keep raising tuition and for students to choose to major in low-earning degree programs. Colleges have no reason to make their programs more affordable if they believe students will just take out more debt. And, students will feel more comfortable making the irresponsible decision to go tens of thousands of dollars in debt to major in impractical or idealistic subjects if they know their loans will be forgiven.

This is especially concerning given the pandemic (大流行病) has rendered a college education practically worthless. Students are paying tens of thousands of dollars per year to live at home and be lectured on the Internet. Do we really want to tell colleges that they can get away with providing below-average service for an outrageous cost?

In the case of any of these student debt plans, working-class Americans who chose not to or could not afford to go to college will be subsidizing the education of the professional class. Plumbers and retail workers will be paying for the degrees of doctors and lawyers.

The US government's effort to help those in debt is commendable but is this really the solution that will help the poor financially recover?

If there's one rule that most parents cling to in the confusing, fast-changing world of kids and media, it's "No screens before age 2 ."

As of today, that rule has been thrown out the window.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which first issued that recommendation back in 1999, has extensively updated and revised its guidelines for children and adolescents to reflect new research and new habits.

The new guidelines, especially for very young children, shift the focus from WHAT is on the screen to WHO else is in the room. And in doing so, they raise some intriguing points about the future of learning from the media.

For babies younger than 18 months, AAP still says no screens at all are the best idea—with one notable exception: Live video chat. Surveys indicate that families already popularly believe that "Face time doesn't count or at least that the benefit of virtual visits with grandparents or other relatives outweighs the potential cost of exposing babies to the laptop or smartphone.

The AAP doesn't cite positive evidence that infants actually get something out of this kind of "conversation", the way that they clearly do from live social interaction. But there's some observational research that infants as young as six months old are emotionally engaged by playing live peekaboo (躲猫猫游戏) with Grandma online.

For infants and toddlers (学步儿童), ages 15 months to 2 years old, there's limited evidence from a couple of very small studies that they can learn new words from educational media, if and only if parents are watching alongside them, repeating what the video says and/or drawing attention to what is on the screen. In other words, treating a video or an app like a picture book is the best bet.

The flip side of this is that many studies have actually shown poorer language skills correlated with earlier solo viewing of "educational" videos. There's also research that shows language delays in children who watch more TV and start watching earlier. In both cases, the problem seems to be media replacing interaction with people. For this reason, the new AAP guideline has changed from "avoid all screens under age 2" to "avoid solo media use in this age group."

For preschoolers ages 2 to 5, there's more evidence that they have the ability to transfer knowledge from screens to the real world, including early literacy and math. For this age group, AAP recommends no more than an hour a day of screen use. And, just as with younger children, they want care-givers to take part in screen time: "Co-view with your children, help children understand what they are seeing, and help them apply what they learn to the world around them."