The 21st century has created a whole range of new types of professionals that we have never had before—or if not quite new, at least newly repackaged. The world has always had influential people, for instance, but only now do we have “Influencer”. Similarly, the corporate world has certainly known its fair share of disruption, yet it is only in the last couple of decades that the “Disruptor” has become a recognisable figure in the way we talk about big business.36 In an earlier era, the Disruptor would have been called an Innovator. Yet while an Innovator creates something new, the Disruptor is defined as much by what they destroy as by what they create. The Disruptor forces change, the clean-up is somebody else’s problem. It’s an attitude best summed up as “Move fast and break things.”Back in 1929, G. K. Chesterton identified the core problem with this mindset through a thought experiment. Imagine there is a fence along a road. Suppose it’s been there a long time, and was put there for some purpose. But that purpose is lost over time. To us, now, the fence seems to be nothing but an impediment. Why not remove it?37 Some fences keep foxes out of henhouses, for instance. If you think you can do without the fence because you’ve never seen a fox, consider if the existence of the fence is precisely why you’ve never seen one.Importantly, Chesterton is not saying that things can never be reformed. His is a preventive principle rather than an outright prohibition. We could rephrase it like this: understand the wisdom in past decisions before you reject them. 38 But uncritical devotion to the “way things are done” can also deny us the possibility of better days.39 Our personal viewpoint is limited and cannot cover all facts. Disruption can be a force for good. It can also just leave a big mess. 40 Because however impressively fast you move, some things can’t be easily unbroken.A. Chesterton provides a logical answer to this question.B. So what makes Disruptors different from traditional Innovators?C. If we act too impetuously, we may ruin things we unconsciously depend on.D. Therefore, we need a modest attitude when facing changes and traditions.E. Many business leaders praise Disruptors for their courage to challenge rules.F. It is widely accepted that innovation drives the development of industries.G. Blind reform has long been criticized by many sociologists.全文中文翻译21世纪催生了一大批前所未有的新型职业——即便算不上全新，也至少是被重新包装过的产物。举例来说，世界上向来都有具备影响力的人，但直到如今我们才诞生了“网红博主”这一称谓。同样，企业界一直不乏颠覆变革行为，但仅仅在过去几十年里，“颠覆者”才成为我们探讨大型商业时一个耳熟能详的角色。36 在更早的年代，颠覆者会被称作创新者。但二者存在本质区别：创新者的核心是创造全新事物，而颠覆者的定义，既取决于他们创造了什么，也同等取决于他们摧毁了什么。颠覆者强行推动变革，善后收拾烂摊子的工作却交由别人承担，这种心态可以精炼概括为：快速行动，打破常规。早在1929年，G.K.切斯特顿就通过一项思想实验，指出了这种处事模式的核心弊端。设想道路旁立着一道围栏，它伫立已久，最初的设立必然带有某种目的，但这个初衷随着时间流逝早已被人遗忘。如今在我们眼中，这道围栏只不过是阻碍前行的累赘，那为何不直接拆掉它？37 比如，有些围栏的作用是阻拦狐狸进入鸡舍。如果你因为从未见过狐狸，就认定这道围栏毫无用处，不妨思考一下：会不会正是围栏的存在，才让你从来没有遭遇过狐狸？需要着重说明的是，切斯特顿并非主张一切事物都绝不可以改良。他提出的是一条预防性原则，而非彻底的禁令。我们可以这样转述：在否定过往的决策之前，先要读懂其中蕴含的智慧。38 但与此同时，不假思索地固守固有行事模式，也会让我们错失迈向更好生活的可能。39 我们个人的视角是有限的，无法涵盖全部事实。颠覆变革固然可以成为向善的力量，但它也往往会留下一堆难以收拾的烂摊子。40 因为无论行动的速度多么惊人，有些事物一旦损毁，便很难复原。A. 切斯特顿针对这个问题给出了条理清晰的答案。B. 那么颠覆者和传统创新者的区别是什么？C. 如果行事过于鲁莽冲动，我们可能会毁掉那些自己潜意识里赖以生存的事物。D. 因此，我们在面对变革和传统时需要保持谦逊的态度。E. 很多企业管理者夸赞颠覆者敢于挑战规则的勇气。F. 人们普遍认为创新推动行业发展。G. 盲目改革长期以来受到很多社会学家的批判。标准答案36.B 37.A 38.C 39.D 40.G逐题详细解析36. B解题逻辑：空后段落详细对比Disruptor（颠覆者）和Innovator（创新者）两个概念的差异，B选项以设问形式承上启下，自然引出下文二者的区别分析。干扰项排除：E夸赞颠覆者、F讨论创新的意义，都无法引出后文两者对比的内容。37. A解题逻辑：上文抛出问句“既然围栏看似无用，为什么不拆掉？”，后文讲解切斯特顿对围栏案例的解读，A选项承接上文问题，引出切斯特顿的观点，逻辑完整通顺。干扰项排除：C讲鲁莽行事的危害，和本段围栏案例话题不匹配。38. C解题逻辑：前文说明改革前要理解过往决策的智慧，后文But转折，指出一味守旧也不可取。C选项点明冲动行事会毁掉我们依赖的事物，和前文“不要轻易否定过往智慧”形成因果逻辑，完美衔接上下文。39. D解题逻辑：本空为段首主旨句，后文提到个人视角有局限性、变革利弊共存。D选项总结全文核心观点：面对变革和传统要保持谦逊，统领整段内容。40. G解题逻辑：后文解释原因，说明事物一旦被破坏很难修复。G选项“盲目改革被社会学家批判”，引出后文解释盲目颠覆带来的严重后果，逻辑合理。剩余干扰项完整分析E：全文作者对颠覆者“快速破坏”的模式持批判态度，没有夸赞企业管理者推崇颠覆者，偏离文章主旨。F：文章核心讨论盲目颠覆式创新的弊端，并非单纯肯定创新的价值，和文章主线不符。
夜雨聆风