57.According to the passage, which of the following is true?

　　[A]All international managers can learn culture.

　　[B]Business diversity is not necessary.

　　[C]Views differ on how to treat culture in business world.

　　[D]Most people do not know foreign culture well.

　　58.According to the author, the model of Pepsi.

　　[A]is in line with the theories of the school advocating the business is business the world around.

　　[B]is different from the model of McDonald’s

　　[C]shows the reverse of globalization

　　[D]has converged cultural differences

　　59.The two schools of thought.

　　[A]both propose that companies should tailor business approaches to individual cultures

　　[B]both advocate that different policies be set up in different countries

　　[C]admit the existence of cultural diversity in business world

　　[D]Both A and B

　　60.This article is supposed to be most useful for those.

　　[A]who are interested in researching the topic of cultural diversity

　　[B]who have connections to more than one type of culture

　　[C]who want to travel abroad

　　[D]who want to run business on International Scale

　　61.According to Fortune, successful international companies.

　　[A]earn 20 percent or more of their revenue overseas

　　[B]all have the quality of patience

　　[C]will follow the overseas local cultures

　　[D]adopt the policy of internationalization

　　Passage Two

　　Questions 62 to 66 are based on the following passage.

　　There are people in Italy who can’t stand soccer. Not all Canadians love hockey. A similar situation exists in America, where there are those individuals you may be one of them who yawn or even frown when somebody mentions baseball. Baseball to them means boring hours watching grown men in funny tight outfits standing around in a field staring away while very little of anything happens. They tell you it’s a game better suited to the 19th century, slow, quiet, and gentlemanly. These are the same people you may be one of them who love football because there’s the sport that glorifies “the hit”.

　　By contrast, baseball seems abstract, cool, silent, still.

　　On TV the game is fractured into a dozen perspectives, replays, close�瞮ps. The geometry of the game, however, is essential to understanding it. You will contemplate the game from one point as a painter does his subject; you may, of course, project yourself into the game. It is in this projection that the game affords so much space and time for involvement. The TV won’t do it for you.

　　Take, for example, the third baseman. You sit behind the third base dugout and you watch him watching home plate. His legs are apart, knees flexed. His arms hang loose. He does a lot of this. The skeptic still cannot think of any other sports so still, so passive. But watch what happens every time the pitcher throws: the third baseman goes up on his toes, flexes his arms or bring the glove to a point in front of him, takes a step right or left, backward or forward, perhaps he glances across the field to check his first baseman’s position. Suppose the pitch is a ball. “Nothing happened,” you say. “I could have had my eyes closed.”

　　The skeptic and the innocent must play the game. And this involvement in the stands is no more intellectual than listening to music is. Watch the third baseman. Smooth the dirt in front of you with one foot; smooth the pocket in your glove; watch the eyes of the batter, the speed of the bat, the sound of horsehide on wood. If football is a symphony of movement and theatre, baseball is chamber music, a spacious interlocking of notes, chores and responses.