31. What is true about Wunderlist and Sunrise after their acquisitions?
- A. Their engineers were retained.
- B. Their market values declined.
- C. Their tech features improved.
- D. Their products were re-priced.
答案：A
答案句：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 great hunger for tech talent.
参考译文：然而，这两款应用后来都被废弃了，因为微软表示已将其最佳功能用于自己的产品中。它们的工程师团队留了下来，使他们成为大公司用来满足其对科技人才巨大需求的众多“收购式招聘”中的两个。
定位线索：题干“after their acquisitions”定位到第2段“Both apps...later scrapped...Their teams of engineers stayed on”；文中“Their teams of engineers stayed on”对应选项A“Their engineers were retained”。
解析：题干问收购后Wunderlist和Sunrise的真实情况。答案句明确说“Their teams of engineers stayed on”，即工程师团队留任，与选项A“Their engineers were retained”同义。选项B“市值下降”原文未提及；选项C“技术特性提升”原文说其最佳功能被微软使用，并非自身提升；选项D“产品重新定价”无中生有。
32. Microsoft’s critics believe that the big tech companies tend to.
- A. exaggerate their product quality
- B. eliminate their potential competitors
- C. treat new tech talent unfairly
- D. ignore public opinions
答案：B
答案句：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. “They bought the seedlings and closed them down,” complained Paul Arnold, a partner at San Francisco-based Switch Ventures, putting an end to businesses that might one day turn into competitors.
参考译文：在微软的批评者看来，Wunderlist和Sunrise的命运是大型科技公司无情碾压其道路上任何创新公司的例证。“他们买下幼苗然后将其关闭，”旧金山Switch Ventures的合伙人Paul Arnold抱怨道，终结了那些有朝一日可能成为竞争对手的企业。
定位线索：题干“Microsoft’s critics believe”对应答案句“To Microsoft’s critics...chew up any innovative companies”；文中“putting an end to businesses that might one day turn into competitors”对应选项B“eliminate their potential competitors”。
解析：题干问批评者认为大科技公司倾向于做什么。答案句指出批评者认为大公司“chew up any innovative companies”并“putting an end to businesses that might one day turn into competitors”，即消灭潜在竞争对手，对应选项B。选项A“夸大产品质量”无中生有；选项C“不公平对待新科技人才”原文未提；选项D“忽视公众意见”答非所问。
33. Paul Arnold is concerned that small acquisitions might.
- A. weaken big tech companies
- B. worsen market competition
- C. harm the national economy
- D. discourage start-up investors
答案：C
答案句：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.”
参考译文：和其他初创企业投资者一样，Arnold先生自己的业务往往依赖于将初创企业出售给大型科技公司，尽管他承认对结果有复杂感受：“如果戴上自私的帽子，我认为这些事对我有好处。但它们对美国经济有好处吗？我不知道。”
定位线索：题干“Paul Arnold is concerned”定位到第4段“he admits to mixed feelings”；文中“are they good for the American economy? I don’t know”对应选项C“harm the national economy”。
解析：题干问Paul Arnold担心小收购可能带来什么。答案句中他质疑“are they good for the American economy? I don’t know”，表明他担心可能损害国家经济，对应选项C。选项A“削弱大科技公司”与原文相反；选项B“恶化市场竞争”未直接提及；选项D“打击初创投资者”原文说对他自己有利，并非打击。
34. The US Federal Trade Commission intends to.
- A. limit Big Tech’s expansion
- B. encourage research collaboration
- C. examine small acquisitions
- D. supervise start-ups’ operation
答案：C
答案句：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.
参考译文：美国联邦贸易委员会表示，它想找到这个问题的答案。本周，它要求美国最有价值的五家科技公司提供过去十年中许多小规模收购的信息。尽管目前只是一个研究项目，但这一要求引发了监管机构涉足早期科技市场的可能性，而此前这些市场不在其管辖范围内。
定位线索：题干“The US Federal Trade Commission intends to”定位到第5段“it asked the five most valuable US tech companies for information about their many small acquisitions”；文中“asked...for information about their many small acquisitions”对应选项C“examine small acquisitions”。
解析：题干问FTC打算做什么。答案句明确说FTC“asked the five most valuable US tech companies for information about their many small acquisitions”，即要求提供小收购信息，目的是审查这些小收购，对应选项C。选项A“限制大科技扩张”程度过重，原文只是研究项目；选项B“鼓励研究合作”无中生有；选项D“监督初创企业运营”答非所问，FTC关注的是收购而非运营。
35. For the five biggest tech companies, their small acquisitions have.
- A. brought little financial pressure
- B. raised few management challenges
- C. set an example for future deals
- D. generated considerable profits
答案：A
答案句：Given their combined market value of more than $5.5 trillion, rifling through such small deals—many of them much less prominent than Wunderlist and Sunrise—might seem beside the point. Between them, the five biggest tech companies have spent an average of only $3.4 billion a year on sub- $ 1 billion acquisitions over the past five years—a drop in the ocean compared with their massive financial reserves, and the more than $130 billion of venture capital that was invested in the US last year.
参考译文：鉴于它们合计市值超过5.5万亿美元，翻查这些小交易——其中许多远不如Wunderlist和Sunrise知名——似乎无关紧要。在过去五年中，这五家最大的科技公司每年在低于10亿美元的收购上平均仅花费34亿美元，与它们庞大的财务储备以及去年美国超过1300亿美元的风险投资相比，这只是沧海一粟。
定位线索：题干“For the five biggest tech companies, their small acquisitions have”定位到第6段“the five biggest tech companies have spent an average of only $3.4 billion a year”；文中“a drop in the ocean compared with their massive financial reserves”对应选项A“brought little financial pressure”。
解析：题干问五家最大科技公司的小收购带来了什么。答案句指出它们每年仅花费34亿美元，与庞大财务储备相比“a drop in the ocean”，即财务压力极小，对应选项A“brought little financial pressure”。选项B“管理挑战”原文未提；选项C“为未来交易树立榜样”无中生有；选项D“产生可观利润”原文未提，且与“无关紧要”矛盾。