历年招商银行秋季校园招聘笔试真题及答案解析
- 格式:doc
- 大小:352.50 KB
- 文档页数:36
历年招商银行秋季校园招聘笔试真题及答案解析
第一部分英语(1-15)
一、阅读理解
Text 1
It would be all too easy to say that Facebook’s market meltdown is coming to an
end. After all, Mark Zuckerberg’s social network burned as much as $ 50 billion
of shareholders’ wealth in just a couple months. To put that in context, since its
debut( 初次登台)on NASDAQ in May, Facebook has lost value nearly equal to Yahoo,
AOL, Zynga, Yelp, Pandora, Open Table, Groupon, LinkedIn, and Angie’s List combined,
plus that of the bulk of the publicly traded newspaper industry.
As shocking as this utter failure may be to the nearly 1 billion faithful Facebook
users around the world, it’s no surprise to anyone who read the initial public
offering ( IPO) prospectus( 首次公开募股说明书). Worse still, all the crises that
emerged when the company debuted — overpriced shares, poor corporate governance,
huge challenges to the core business, and a damaged brand — remain today. Facebook
looks like a prime example of what Wall Street calls a falling knife — that is,
one that can cost investors their fingers if they try to catch it.
Start with the valuation( 估值). To justify a stock price close to the lower end
of the projected range in the IPO, say $ 28 a share, Facebook’s future growth would
have needed to match that of Google seven years earlier. That would have required
increasing revenue by some 80 percent annually and maintaining high profit margins
all the while.
That’s not happening. In the first half of 2012, Facebook reported revenue of $ 2.24
billion, up 38 percent from the same period in 2011. At the same time, the company’s costs surged to $ 2.6 billion in the six-month period.
This so-so performance reflects the Achilles’ heel of Facebook’s business model,
which the company clearly stated in a list of risk factors associated with its IPO:
it hasn’t yet figured out how to advertise effectively on mobile devices, the number
of Facebook users accessing the site on their phones surged by 67 percent to 543
million in the last quarter, or more than half its customer base.
Numbers are only part of the problem. The mounting pile of failure creates a negative
feedback loop that threatens Facebook’s future in other ways. Indeed, the more
Facebook’s disappointment in the market is catalogued, the worse Facebook’s image becomes. Not only does that threaten to rub off on users, it’s bad for recruitment
and retention of talented hackers, who are the life blood of Zuckerberg’s creation.
Yet the brilliant CEO can ignore the sadness and complaints of his shareholders
thanks to the super-voting stock he holds. This arrangement also was fully disclosed
at the time of the offering. It’s a pity so few investors apparently bothered to
do their homework.
1. What can be inferred about Facebook from the first paragraph?
A. Its market meltdown has been easily halted.
B. It has increased trade with the newspaper industry.
C. It has encountered utter failure since its stock debut.
D. Its shareholders have invested $ 50 billion in a social network.
2. The crises Facebook is facing _______________.
A. have been disclosed in the IPO prospectus
B. are the universal risks Wall Street confronts
C. disappoint its faithful users
D. have existed for a long time
3. To make its stock price reasonable, Facebook has to _______________.
A. narrow the IPO price range
B. cooperate with Google
C. keep enormously profitable
D. invest additional $ 2.6 billion
4. It can be inferred from the context that the “Achilles’ heel” ( Line 1, Para.
5) refers to ______________.
A. deadly weakness
B. problem unsolved
C. indisputable fact
D. potential risk
5. What effect will Facebook’s failure in the market have?
A. Its users’ benefits will be threatened.
B. Talented hackers will take down the website. C. The CEO will hold the super-voting stock.
D. The company’s innovation strength will be damaged.
Text 2
I’ll admit I’ve never quite understood the obsession( 难以破除的成见)surrounding
genetically modified ( GM) crops. To environmentalist opponents, GM foods are simply
evil, an understudied, possibly harmful tool used by big agricultural businesses
to control global seed markets and crush local farmers. They argue that GM foods
have never delivered on their supposed promise, that money spent on GM crops would
be better channeled to organic farming and that consumers should be protected with
warning labels on any products that contain genetically modified ingredients. To
supporters, GM crops are a key part of the effort to sustainably provide food to
meet a growing global population. But more than that, supporters see the GM
opposition of many environmentalists as fundamentally anti-science, no different
than those who question the basics of man-made climate change.
For both sides, GM foods seem to act as a symbol: you’re pro-agricultural business
or anti-science. But science is exactly what we need more of when it comes to GM
foods, which is why I was happy to see Nature devote a special series of articles
to the GM food controversy. The conclusion: while GM crops haven’t yet realized
their initial promise and have been dominated by agricultural businesses, there is
reason to continue to use and develop them to help meet the enormous challenge of
sustainably feeding a growing planet.
That doesn’t mean GM crops are perfect, or a one-size-fits-all solution to global
agriculture problems. But anything that can increase farming efficiency — the
amount of crops we can produce per acre of land — will be extremely useful. GM crops
can and almost certainly will be part of that suite of tools’ but so will traditional
plant breeding, improved soil and crop management and perhaps most important of all,
better storage and transport infrastructure( 基础设施), especially in the
developing world. ( It doesn’t do much good for farmers in places like sub-Saharan
Africa to produce more food if they can’t get it to hungry consumers.) I’d like
to see more non-industry research done on GM crops — not just because we’d worry
less about bias, but also because seed companies like Monsanto and Pioneer shouldn’t be the only entities working to harness genetic modification. I’d like to see
GM research on less commercial crops, like corn. I don’t think it’s vital to label
GM ingredients in food, but I also wouldn’t be against if — and industry would