2006
Text 1
In spite of “endless talk of difference”，American society is an amazing machine for homogenizing people. There is “the democratizing uniformity of dress and discourse，and the casualness and absence of deference”characteristic of popular culture. People ar e absorbed into “a culture of consumption” launched by the 19th——century department stores that offered “vast arrays of goods in an elegant atmosphere. Instead of intimate shops catering to a knowledgeable elite,” these were stores “anyone cou ld enter, regardless of class or background. This turned shopping into a public and democratic act.” The mass media, advertising and sports are other forces for homogenization.
不管我们如何喋喋不休地谈论差别，美国社会实际上是一台同化人们的神奇的机器。这就是民主化的着装和言谈，并且还有种随意和缺乏尊重感，这些构成了通俗文化的特性。人们被一种消费文化所吸引了，这种文化是由十九世纪在高雅的氛围中陈列着琳琅满目的商品的百货商店所开始的。他们不是为了迎合有知识的精英们而开设的专门商店，而是创建了“不分阶层和背景人人都可以进入”的大众商店。这使得购物成为一种大众的、民主的行为。大众传媒、广告和体育也是协助人们均质化的推动力。
Immigrants are quickly fitting into this common culture, which may not be altogether elevating but is hardly poisonous. Writing for the National Immigration Forum, Gregory Rodriguez reports that today's immigration is neither at unprecedented levels nor resistant to assimilation. In 1998 immigrants were 9.8 percent of population; in 1900, 13.6 percent .In the 10 years prior to 1990, 3.1 immigrants arrived for every 1，000 residents; in the 10 years prior to 1890, 9.2 for every 1, 000. Now, consider three indices of assimilation–language, home ownership and intermarriage.
尽管这种文化并不算高雅，但也算不上有害，移民们很快就融入了这种共同文化。Gregory Rodriguez为美国移民研讨会撰文指出，今天的移民既不是处于空前的水平，也不抵制同化。在1998年，移民占全国人口的9.8%；在1900年为13.6%。在1990年以前的十年之中，在每千位居民当中，有千分之3.1的新来的移民；而在1890年以前的十年之中，每千位居民当中就有千分之9.2的移民。现在，让我们来看一下三个同化指标——语言、拥有产权住房和异族结婚情况。
The 1990 Census revealed that “a majority of immigrants from each of the fifteen most common countries of origin spoke English “well” or “very well” after ten years of residence.” The children of immigrants tend to be bilingual and proficient in English. “By the third generation, the original language is lost in the majorit y of immigrant families.” Hence the description of America as a “graveyard” for languages. By 1996 foreign–born immigrants who had arrived before 1970 had a homeownership rate of 75.6 percent, higher than the 69.8 percent rate among native-born Americans. 1990年的人口普查透露：“来自十五个移民数量最多的国家的移民在到美国十年后英语说得‘好’或‘很好’。”移民的子女几乎都说两种语言，且精通英语。“到了第三代，在大多数移民家庭，他们的母语就消失了。”因此，有人就把美国描述成了“语言的坟场”。到了1996年，出生于国外的、在1970年以前到达美国的移民有75.6%购置了自己的住房，这个数字高出土生土长的美国人的拥有自己所有权住房的百分比——69.8%。
Foreign-born Asians and Hispanics “have higher rates o f intermarriage than do U.S–born whites and blacks.” By the third generation, one third of Hispanic women are married to non-Hispanics, and 41 percent of Asian–American women are married to non-Asians.
在国外出生的亚裔和西班牙裔移民“与美国本土白人和黑人相比，与异族通婚的比率要高。”到了第三代，有三分之一的西班牙裔女性与非西班牙裔男性结婚，而有41%亚裔美国妇女与非亚裔男性结婚。
Rodriguez notes that children in remote villages around the world are fans of superstars like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Garth Brooks, yet “some Americans fear that immigrant living within the United States remain somehow immune to the nation’s assimilative power.”
罗得里格斯写道，即使那些住在世界各地偏僻村庄的孩子们都是诸如阿诺.施瓦辛格和加思.布鲁克斯等明星的星迷，然而“一些美国人却害怕住在美国的移民不知为何能不受这个国家的同化力量的影响”。
Are there divisive issues and pockets of seething anger in America? Indeed. It is big enough to have a bit of everyth ing. But particularly when viewed against America‘s turbulent past, today’s social induces hardly suggest a dark and deteriorating social environment.
在美国是否存在不和以及潜在的不安？答案是肯定的，因为这个国家足够大以至于什么现象都存在。但是与美国动荡狂暴的过去相比，如今的社会基本不能说明美国的社会环境正变得黑暗，且正在恶化。
Text 2
Stratford-on-Avon, as we all know, has only one industry-William Shakespeare-but there are two distinctly separate and increasingly hostile branches. There is the Royal Shakespeare Company （RSC）, which presents superb productions of the plays at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre on the Avon. And there are the townsfolk who largely live off the tourists who come, not to see the plays, but to look at Anne Hathaway’s Cottage, Shakespeare’s birthplace and the other sights.
众所周知Stratford-on-Avon只有一个特色,那就是威廉?莎士比亚,但这儿却有两个相互独立的部门,他们随着时间的变化而日益变得敌对。这儿有皇家莎士比亚公司（RSC），它在Avon的莎士比亚纪念剧院里将很多优秀的戏剧作品呈现给大家。这儿的居民大部分是靠挣来游玩的游客的钱来维持生计，这些游客并不是来看戏剧的，而是来看Anne Hathaway的庄园，莎士比亚的出生地和其他的景色。The worthy residents of Stratford doubt that the theatre adds a penny to their revenue. They frankly disl ike the RSC’s actors, them with their long hair and beards and sandals and noisiness. It’s all deliciously ironic when you consider that Shakespeare, who earns their living, was himself an actor （with a beard）and did his share of noise - making.
Stratford的当地乡绅们都质疑剧院有没有为当地的税收收入做一点贡献。他们直言讨厌RSC的演员，这些演员留着长头发，长胡须，拖着凉鞋，吵吵嚷嚷。这真是一种绝妙的讽刺，当你想到作为他们摇钱树的莎士比亚,自己也是个演员，留着胡子，一起大吵大闹。
The tourist streams are not entirely separate. The sightseers who come by bus- and
often take in Warwick Castle and Blenheim Palace on the side–don’t usually see the plays, and some of them are even surprised to find a theatre in Stratford. However, the playgoers do manage a little sight - seeing along with their play- going. It is the playgoers, the RSC contends, who bring in much of the town’s revenue because they spend the night （some of them four or five nights）pouring cash into the hotels and restaurants. The sightseers can take in everything and get out of town by nightfall.
游客群并不是完全分开的。游览者乘公车来,，经常会去游览Warwick城堡和Blenheim宫殿，通常不会去看戏，并且他们中的一些人甚至会对在Stratford能找到剧院感到惊讶。然而，看戏者只花少量的时间在观光上，也就是在戏剧演出时顺便看看。RSC主张，是看戏者给城镇带来大量的税收，因为他们通常花整晚上时间（有些是四到五个晚上）在旅馆或饭店里大量消费。然而游览者在当天的黄昏前就能把所有事情做完了，然后离开小镇。
The townsfolk don’t see it this way and local council does not contribute directly to the subsidy of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Stratford cries poor traditionally. Nevertheless every hotel in town seems to be adding a new wing or cocktail lounge. Hilton is building its own hotel there，which you may be sure will be decorated with Hamlet Hamburger Bars, the Lear Lounge, the Banquo Banqueting Room, and so forth, and will be very expensive.
当地居民并不这么认为，地方政府也直接没有给予RSC补贴。Stratford一向都会哭穷。然而城镇上每一家旅馆似乎都增加了新的部门或是鸡尾酒酒吧。希尔顿也在这儿建了一座自己的酒店，这里肯定可以能看到被装饰一新的哈姆雷特汉堡酒吧，Lear休息室，宴会厅等等。进一步说，这里消费将很贵。
Anyway, the townsfolk can’t understand why the Royal Shakespeare Company needs a subsidy. （The theatre has broken attendance records for three years in a row. Last year its 1,431 seats were 94 per cent occupied all year long and this year they’ll do better.）The reason, of course, is that costs have rocketed and ticket prices have stayed low.
总之，居民不明白为什么RSC需要补贴。（剧院已经打破了连续三年以来的就座率纪录。去年整年的1431个座位的就坐率达到了94%，今年将会更高。）当然，原因是，演戏的花费高了，然而票价仍然很低。
It would be a shame to raise prices too much because it would drive away the young people who are Stratford’s most attractive clientele. They come entirely for the plays, not the sights. They all seem to look alike （though they come from all over）–lean, pointed, dedicated faces, wearing jeans and sandals, eating their buns and bedding down for the night on the flagstones outside the theatre to buy the 20 seats and 80 standing-room tickets held for the sleepers and sold to them when the box office opens at 10:30 a.m.
大幅增加票价是一件很为难的事情，因为这样会把Stratford的最有魅力的顾客－年轻人赶走。他们完全是为了戏而来，不是为风景。他们看起来都一个样（虽然他们从各个地方而来）——消瘦、率直、专注的脸庞，穿着牛仔裤和便鞋，吃着小圆面包，在剧场外的石板上过夜，以便能买得到20张座票和80张站票，这些票都是为那些睡觉的人准备的，并且在票房第二天上午10点半开始售票时就卖给他们。
Text 3
When prehistoric man arrived in new parts of the world, something strange happened to the large animals. they suddenly became extinct. Smaller species survived. The large, slow-growing animals were easy game, and were quickly hunted to extinction.Now something similar could be happening in the oceans.
当史前的人到达世界的一个新的地方时，那里的大部分动物就会发生奇怪的事情。它们突然灭绝了。小部分动物种族存活了下来，但大部分的，成长缓慢的动物则成了狩猎的目标，并且很快被狩猎到灭绝。现在相类似的事情发生在大海中. That the seas are being overfished has been known for years. What researchers such as Ransom Myers and Boris Worm have shown is just how fast things are changing. They have looked at half a century of data from fisheries around the world. Their methods do not attempt to estimate the actual biomass （the amount of living biological matter）of fish species in particular parts of the ocean, but rather changes in that biomass over time. According to their latest paper published in Nature, the biomass of large predators （animals that kill and eat other animals）in a new fishery is reduced on average by 80% within 15 years of the start of exploitation. In some long-fished areas, it has halved again since then.
这些年在海中的捕捞活动太过频繁，就像Ransom Myers和Boris Worm这些年所研究的，事物在迅速地变化着。他们研究了半个世纪以来世界上所有的鱼场。他们的方法不是为了试图估算特定区域的海洋中实际动物总数（活着生物的总数），而是研究单位面积中海洋生物数量的变化。根据他们最近在《自然》杂志上发表的文章，大型食肉的海洋生物（一种杀死和吃其它动物的生物）的总量在15年的时间里已经减少了平均80%。在一些大型的捕鱼场，这个数量已经减半。Dr. Worm acknowledges that these figures are conservative. One reason for this is that fishing technology has improved.Today’s vessels can find their prey using satellites and sonar, which were not available 50 years ago. That means a higher proportion of what is in the sea is being caught, so the real difference between present and past is likely to be worse than the one recorded by changes in catch sizes. In the early days, too, lonelines would have been more saturated with fish. Some individuals would therefore not have been caught, since no baited hooks would have been available to trap them, leading to an underestimate of fish stocks in the past. Furthermore, in the early days of longline fishing, a lot of fish were lost to sharks after they had been hooked. That is no longer a problem, because there are fewer sharks around now.
Worm博士承认这些数字还只是保守数字，一个原因是今天的捕鱼技术已经大大改善，可以通过卫星和声波这些在50年前不可能有的东西来发现猎物，这同50年前相比意味着可以捕获更多的海洋生物，所以现在和过去的真正差距可能会比之前在捕获区记录的数据所体现出的更糟糕。在早期的时候，多勾的鱼杆线已经对鱼不起作用了。因此有一些鱼种没被抓到，往后没有鱼饵的鱼钩根本捕不到鱼，导致过去的捕鱼业受到轻视。而且，早期用鱼钩捕鱼的日子，有许多鱼在它们上钩后被鲨鱼给吃了。那不再是个问题，因为现在鲨鱼已经很少了。
Dr. Myers and Dr. Worm argue that their work gives a correct baseline, which future management efforts must take into account. They believe the date support an idea current among marine biologists, that of the “shifting baseline”. The notion is that
people have failed to detect the massive changes which have happened in the ocean because they have been looking back only a relatively short time into the past. That matters because theory suggests that the maximum sustainable yield that can be cropped from a fishery comes when the biomass of a target species is about 50% of its original levels. Most fisheries are well below that，which is a bad way to be business. Dr. Myers和Dr. worm声称说，他们的工作已经确定了一个正确的基本方针，这个方针是未来管理中必须要使用的。他们认为数据恰恰体现了一个海洋生物学家都支持的观点。这个观点就是“改变基线”。这个概念就是说人们已经很难观察得到大范围海洋中发生的变化，因为他们只是回顾从过去以来相对短的时间。这确有其事，因为理论告诉我们如果一个渔场的总储量如果连起初的最大可承受的捕鱼量的50％都不到，就应该降低捕鱼数量了。大多数渔场远远低于这个数，这是对以后的捕鱼业非常不利的。
Text 4
Many things make people think artists are weird.But the weirdest may be this: artists’ only job is to explore emotions, and yet they choose to focus on the ones that feel bad. 许多事情让人们觉得艺术家很古怪。最古怪可能是：艺术家的唯一工作就是寻找情感，然而他们所关注的对象大多是那些不幸的人。
This wasn’t always so. The earliest forms of art, like painting and music, are those best suited for expressing joy. But somewhere from the 19th century onward,more artists began seeing happiness as meaningless, phony or, worst of all, boring ,as we went from Wordsworth’s daffodils to Baudelaire’s flowers of evil.
当然不总是那样。艺术的最早形式，像绘画和音乐，都是最适合表达快乐的。但在19世纪的某个时期，更多的艺术家开始把快乐看成无意义的，假冒的，甚至是最糟的。我们可以从Wordsworth的黄水仙到Baudelaire的罪恶之花看出这种变化。
You could argue that art became more skeptical of happiness because modern times have seen so much misery. But it’s not as if earlier times didn’t know perpetual war, disaster and the massacre of innocents. The reason,in fact,may be just the opposite: there is too much damn happiness in the world today.
你可能会争论艺术变得对幸福如此怀疑是因为在现代看到了这样的苦难。但这并不是因为在早期不了解持久的战争,灾难和大规模的屠杀无辜。事实上，原因可能与之相反：现在世界上有太多快乐要去谴责。
After all, what is the one modern form of expression almost completely dedicated to depicting happiness？Advertising. The rise of anti-happy art almost exactly tracks the emergence of mass media, and with it, a commercial culture in which happiness is not just an ideal but an ideology.
归根结底，几乎完全致力于描写快乐的那种现代表现方式是什么呢？广告。反快乐艺术的兴起几乎完全与大众传媒同步出现，而随之兴起了一种商业文化，在这种文化中，快乐不仅是一个抽象概念，而是一种意识形态。
People in earlier eras were surrounded by reminders of misery. They worked until exhausted, lived with few protections and died young. In the West, before mass communication and literacy, the most powerful mass medium was the church, which reminded worshippers that their souls were in danger and that they would someday be
meat for worms. Given all this, they did not exactly need their art to be a bummer too. 早期的人们被悲痛之使者所萦绕。他们工作到筋疲力尽，生活几无保障，年纪轻轻就命丧黄泉。在西方，在大众传媒和文学普及之前，最有效的大众媒体是教堂，它提醒信徒们，他们的灵魂处于危险之中，他们总有一天会成为蛆虫的食物。在这种信仰下，他们对此已十分了然，无须其艺术再表现这种失落感。
Today the messages the average Westerner is surrounded with are not religious but commercial and forever happy .Fast-food eaters, news anchors, text messengers, all smiling, smiling. Our magazines feature beaming celebrities and happy families in perfect homes. And since these messages have an agenda—to lure us to open our wallets－they make the very idea of happiness seem unreliable. “Celebrate！”Commanded the ads for the arthritis drug Celebrex, before we found out it could increase the risk of heart attacks.
今天，你们普通西方人面对的围绕我们四周的信息不是宗教的，而是商业的，而且一直让人快乐。快餐食客、新闻主播、发短信的人，都在笑啊笑啊。我们的杂志突出刊登满面春风的名人和美满幸福的家庭。这样的消息都有一项任务——即引诱我们打开钱包去使这些看起来并不可靠的快乐变得真实起来。“欢庆吧！”宣传关节炎良药西乐葆的广告这样号召道，随后我们却发现它能增加心脏病的发病率。
But what we forget—what our economy depends on us forgetting——is that happiness is more than pleasure without pain. The things that bring the greatest joy carry the greatest potential for loss and disappointment. Today, surrounded by promises of easy happiness, we need art to tell us, as religion once did, Memento mori: remember that you will die, that everything ends, and that happiness comes not in denying this but in living with it. It’s a message even more bitter than a clove cigarette, yet, somehow, a breath of fresh air.
但是我们所忘记的是――我们的经济依赖着我们的遗忘――经过痛苦得来的快乐比没有经过痛苦得来的快乐好得多。带给我们最大快乐的事件，同时也暗含着巨大的损失和失望。现在，在耳边充斥着能轻易得到快乐的承诺时，我们需要有人告诉我们，正如宗教曾经所做，死亡警示：记住你会死，一切将会终结，快乐虽然到来，但是它不能消除苦难，而是与其共存。这可能比抽烟更加毒害人的健康，然而，不知为何，也许会带来一股清新的气息。
Text1 Habits are a funny thing. We reach for them mindlessly, setting our brains on auto-pilot and relaxing into the unconscious comfort of familiar routine. “Not ch In but habit rules the unreflecting herd,” William Wordsworth said in the 19th century. the ever-changing 21st century, even the word “habit” carries a negative connotation. So it seems antithetical to talk about habits in the same context as creativity and innovation. 习惯是件有趣的事情。我们无意识间养成了一些习惯，我们的大脑是自动运 转的，轻松进入熟知套路所带来的不自觉舒适状态。“这并非选择，而是习惯控 制了那些没有思想的人”，这是威廉?华兹华斯（William Wordsworth）19世纪时 说的话。在现在这个日新月异的21世纪，甚至习惯这个词本身也带有负面涵义。 因此，在创造和革新的背景下来谈论习惯，似乎显得有点矛盾。 But brain researchers have discovered that when we consciously develop new habits, we create parallel synaptic paths, and even entirely new brain cells, that can jump our trains of thought onto new, innovative tracks. But don’t bother trying to kil off old habits; once those ruts of procedure are worn into the hippocampus, they there to stay. Instead, the new habits we deliberately ingrain into ourselves create parallel pathways that can bypass those old roads. 但大脑研究人员发现，当我们有意识地培养新的习惯的时候，我们创建了平 行路径，甚至是全新的脑细胞，可以让我们的思路跳转到新的创新轨道上来。但 是，不必费心试图摈弃各种旧习惯；一旦这些程序惯例融进大脑，它们就会留在 那里。相反，我们刻意培养的新习惯会创建平行路径能避开原来那些老路。 “The first thing needed for innovation is a fascination with wonder,” says D Markova, author of “The Open Mind” and an executive change consultant for Professional Thinking Partners. “But we are taught instead to ‘decide,’ just as decide is to kill off president calls himself ‘the Decider.’” She adds, however, that “to all possibilities but one. A good innovational thinker is always exploring the many other possibilities.” 大学英语
1 While some studies have suggested that frequent use of cell phones causes increased risk of brain and mouth cancers, others have found no such links. But since cell phones are relatively new and brain cancers grow slowly, many experts are now recommending taking steps to reduce exposure. by bruce stutz 一些研究显示，经常使用手机会增加得脑部和口腔癌症的几率。有的研究却没发现两者之间有什么联系。但是，手机算是个新兴事物，而脑癌发展也缓慢，许多专家还是建议减少使用手机。 2 Does your cell phone increase your risk of brain cancer? Does it affect your skin or your sperm viability? Is it safe for pregnant women or children? Should you keep it in your bag, on your belt, in your pants or shirt pocket? Should you use a hands-free headset? Are present cell phone safety standards strict enough? 手机会增加得脑癌的几率吗？会不会影响皮肤或者精子活性？使用手机对孕妇或孩子安全吗？应该把手机放在哪，包里、衣服口袋，还是挂在腰带上？打电话的时候要用耳机吗？现在的手机安全标准够不够严？ 3 You don’t know? You’re not alone. 你不知道？这很正常。 4 With some 4 to 5 billion cell phones now in use worldwide and hundreds of studies seeking evidence of their health effects published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 10 years, there’s precious little scientific certainty over whether cell phones pose any danger to those using them. For nearly every study that reports an effect, another, just as carefully conducted, finds none. All of which leaves journalists, consumer advocates, regulatory agencies, politicians, industry spokespersons, and cell phone users able to choose and interpret the results they prefer, or ignore the ones they don’t. 如今，全世界共有40-50亿手机正在使用。过去十年里，成百上千的研究也在致力于寻找手机影响健康的证据，并在相关刊物上发表论文。但还没有确凿的证据能证明，使用手机损害健康。几乎没有研究发现手机对健康有不良影响。但这还是没影响到政治家、新闻记者、管理机构、产业发言人、消费者保护团体，还有消费者自己，选择他们喜好的结果去理解，忽略不喜欢的那些。 5 Do you, for instance, cite the studies that report adverse effects on sperm viability and motility, due to exposure to cell phone radiation or the studies that showed no —or mixed —results? 6 Do you cite the 2001 study that found increased incidence of uveal melanoma (a cancer of the eye) among frequent cell phone users, or the 2009 study by the same authors that, in reassessing their data, found no increase? 2001年的研究显示，常用手机的人患葡萄膜黑色素瘤（一种眼内癌症）几率会增大。2009年这些研究员又发表报告称，他们再分析当年的数据时，又不能确
2019考研英语一真题翻译参考答案及解析 考研历年真题一定要用好，研究好。结合大纲和真题来选择辅导用书是最明智的。本文带大家回顾2019考研英语一真题翻译参考答案及解析： Part C Directions: Read the following text carefully and then translate the underlined segments into Chinese. Your translation should be written neatly on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points) It was only after I started to write a weekly column about the medical journals, and began to read scientific papers from beginning to end, that I realised just how bad much of the medical literature frequently was. I came to recognise various signs of a bad paper: the kind of paper that purports to show that people who eat more than one kilo of broccoli a week were 1.17 times more likely than those who eat less to suffer late in life from pernicious anaemia. (46) There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense in the medical journals which, when taken up by broadcasters and the lay press, generates both health scares and short-lived dietary enthusiasms. Why is so much bad science published? A recent paper, titled “The Natural Selection of Bad Science”, published on the Royal Society’s open science website, attempts to answer this intriguing and important question. It says that the problem is not merely that people do bad science, but that our current system of career advancement positively encourages it. What is important is not truth, but publication, which has become almost an end in itself. There has been a kind of inflationary process at work: (47) nowadays anyone applying for a research post has to have published twice the number of papers that would have been required for the same post only 10 years ago. Never mind the quality, then, count the number. (48) Attempts have been made to curb this tendency, for example, by trying to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity int o the assessment of an applicant’s papers. This is the famed citation index, that is to say the number of times a paper has been quoted elsewhere in the scientific literature, the assumption being that an important paper will be cited more often than one of small account. (49) This would be reasonable if it were not for the fact that scientists can easily arrange to cite themselves in their future publications, or get associates to do so for them in return for similar favours. Boiling down an individual’s o utput to simple metrics, such as number of publications or journal impacts, entails considerable savings in time, energy and ambiguity. Unfortunately, the long-term costs of using simple quantitative metrics to assess researcher merit are likely to be quite great. (50) If we are serious about ensuring that our science is both meaningful and reproducible, we must ensure that our institutions encourage that kind of science. 46-50参考答案及解析：
精心整理2011年考研英语(一)阅读真题全文翻译及答案（七绝俗手版） 2011-01-16 21-25CBDBA Text1 ThedecisionoftheNewYorkPhilharmonictohireAlanGilbertasitsnextmusicdirectorhasbeenthet alkoftheclassical-musicworldeversincethesuddenannouncementofhisappointmentin2009.Fort
hemostpart,theresponsehasbeenfavorable,tosaytheleast.“Hooray!Atlast!”wroteAnthonyTo mmasini,asober-sidedclassical-musiccritic。 2009年纽约交响乐团突然宣布聘用艾伦·吉尔伯特为下一位乐曲指挥，从那时起一直到现在，这次任命都成为古典音乐界的话题。退一步说，从总体上看，反应还是不错的。如冷静的古典音乐评论家安东尼·托姆西尼就这样写：从长时间来看，这次委命是英明的。 ,orbootupmycomputeranddownloadstillmorerecordedmusicfromiTunes。 就我的观点而言，我不知道吉尔伯特是不是一位伟大的指挥家，甚至连他是不是算好的指挥家也不敢确定。可以确信的是，虽然他演出了很多令人印象深刻的有趣的乐曲。然而，我不需要访问AveryFisherHall（可能是纽约交响乐团所在地，即吉尔伯特表演之所），或者其他地方才能听到有趣的管弦乐。（作者意思是，不需要听吉尔伯特，到处可以听到有趣的管弦乐。）我所做的，只需要到我的CD棚里去，随便打开我的电脑，从ITUNES上就可下载比那（当指吉尔伯特表演的）多得多的类似的音乐。
Unit1 Chapter1 本，查德，布兰卡和朱迪每个月的第三个星期四举行发明家俱乐部会议。他们轮流展示他们的新发明。 明天轮到本展示他的新发明。唯一的问题就是他到现在还没有想出一个发明··· 本正坐在餐桌旁吃着一杯冰淇淋。 “我能做什么呢？”他一边吃冰淇淋一边问自己。 本对自己要发明什么毫无头绪。他吃完冰淇淋，准备再去弄些来。但是，冰淇淋一点也不剩了。 “我知道了，”他兴奋地说，“我要发明一个冰淇淋机！” 词组：hold meeting召开会议 take turns轮流，更替 think of考虑；想起；有···想法 sit at坐，在···坐 a bowl of一碗 have no idea不知道，不了解 Chapter2 本抓起几张纸和支钢笔，然后他就画出了他的冰淇淋机设计草图。这个草图看起来不太像个冰淇淋机，但是本确信它是可行的。 “我不需要试验，”本对自己说，“好吧，我没时间去试验了。” 本只有找材料的时间了。 第二天下午，查德、布兰卡还有朱迪都在本的卧室。本带着一只麻袋出现了。他倒提着麻袋，许多稀奇古怪的东西掉了出来。 “一堆废品，”布兰卡说，“那真是个好发明。” “哈哈，”本说，“你们就等着瞧吧。” 词组：look much like看起来很像 say to oneself暗想，自言自语 turn up开大；翻起；出现 upside down颠倒，倒转；混乱地 fall out争吵；结果；解散；掉队 a pile of一堆 wait and see等着看；拭目以待；观望；走着瞧 Chapter3 本捡起的第一个东西又大又圆，是用钢做的。它是洗衣机的核心零部件。 本举起那部分，看了看底部的洞。 “那个洞是你钻的吗？”查德问。 “是啊，”本说。 “你这个做得不是很好，”查德说。 “只要有用就行了，”本告诉查德。 “你要知道东西也得看上去好才行，”查德说。 接着，本抓起一根软管，把它装入他钻的那个洞里。 “我想我知道这是什么了，”朱迪激动地说，“它是一个鼠窝！” “一个什么？”布兰卡和查德异口同声问道。 “一个鼠窝，”朱迪说，“老鼠通过软管爬进家里。” 朱迪经常说些奇怪的话，但其他人认为这是她说过的最奇怪的事之一。 本在地上放了一个塑料的冰淇淋盒，把软管的另一端放了进去。然后，他拿起一根细绳，把它绕在洗衣机零部件上。 当绳子紧紧地缠绕到零部件外面后，本往后退了退，仔细瞧着他的发明。 “好吧，这是什么？”布兰卡、查德和朱迪一同问道。 “它当然是一个冰淇淋机啦！”本说。 “那它如何工作呢？”查德问。 “它行不通的，”布兰卡说。
Why We're Fat 1 So why is obesity happening? The obvious, clichéd-but-true answer is that we eat too much high-calorie food and don't burn it off with enough exercise. If only we had more willpower, the problem would go away. But it isn't that easy. 为什么会有肥胖症？一个明显、老生常谈但又真实的答案就是我们吃太多高热量食物并且没有进行足够的运动消耗它。要是我们的意志力更强大，这个问题便迎刃而解了。但是，问题并不是那么简单。 2 When warned about the dangers of overeating, we get briefly spooked and try to do better. Then we're offered a plateful of pancakes smothered in maple syrup, our appetite overpowers our reason, and before we know it, we're at it again. Just why is appetite such a powerful driver of behavior, and, more important, how can we tame it? 当我们被警告说吃得太多的时候，一时总会被吓倒并努力做好一些。然后一碟涂满槭糖浆的煎饼摆在面前，我们的食欲战胜了我们的理智，等到我们意识到它的时候，我们又重蹈覆辙了。到底为什么食欲具有如此强大的推动力？更重要的是，我们怎么才能够控制它？ 3 Within the past few years, science has linked our ravenous appetites to genes and hormones. Among the hormones that fuel these urges are ghrelin and leptin, known as the "hunger hormones." Ghrelin is produced mostly by cells in the stomach lining. Its job is to make you feel hungry by affecting the hypothalamus, which governs metabolism. Ghrelin levels rise in dieters who lose weight and then try to keep it off. It's almost as if their bodies are trying to regain the lost fat. This is one reason why it's hard to lose weight and maintain the loss. 近几年来，科学将我们迫不及待要吃的食欲跟基因和激素联系起来。激起这些强烈的欲望的激素有胃促生长素和消瘦素，也被称作“饥饿激素”。胃促生长素主要由胃保护层的细胞产生。它的职责是影响控制新陈代谢的下丘脑，让你感到饥饿。当节食者减肥并且努力维持减肥效果，他的胃促生长素水平就会升高。就像他们的身体要试图恢复失去的脂肪。这是为什么很难减肥并维持减肥效果的原因之一。 4 Leptin turns your appetite off and is made by fat cells. Low leptin levels increase your appetite and signal your body to store more fat. High leptin levels relay the opposite signal. Many obese people have developed a resistance to the appetite-suppressing effects of leptin and never feel satisfied, no matter how much they eat. Basically, your body uses these hormones to help you stay at your weight and keep you from losing fat —which is another reason why dieting can be so difficult. 消瘦素消除你的食欲，它来自脂肪细胞。低消瘦素水平增加你的食欲并通知你的身体储存更多的脂肪。高消瘦素水平传递相反的信号。很多肥胖的人已经形成了一种对消瘦素抑制食欲效应的抵抗，不管他们吃多少也从不感到满足。从根本上说，你的身体利用这些激素帮助你保持现在的体重，不让你的脂肪流走——这是节食如此之难的另外一个原因。
Last Friday a storm swept through two villages in the New Territories, destroying (摧毁) fourteen homes. Seven others were so badly damaged (破坏) that their owners had to leave them, and fifteen others had broken windows or broken roofs. One person was killed, several were badly hurt and taken to hospital, and a number of other people received smaller hurt. Altogether over two hundred people were homeless after the storm. A farmer, Mr. Tan, said that the storm began early in the morning and lasted for over an hour. “I was eating with my wife and children,” he said, “When we heard a loud noise. A few minutes later our house fell down on top of us. We tried our best to climb out but then I saw that one of my children was missing. I went back inside and found him, safe but very frightened.” Mrs. Woo Mei Fong said that her husband had just left for work when she felt that her house was moving. She ran outside at once with her children. “There was no time to take anything,” she said, “A few minutes later, the roof came down.” Soldiers helped to take people out of the flooded (水淹的) area and the welfare department (福利机构) brought them food, clothes and shelter. 1. How many homes altogether (总共) were damaged in the storm? A. Fourteen B. Twenty-one C. Twenty-nine D. Thirty-six 选D。根据第一段出现的三个数字14，7，15即可知D为正确答案。 2. Where was Mr. Tan when the storm first began? A. He was in bed. B. He was inside the house. C. He was outside the house. D. He was on the roof. 选B。根据“I was eating with my wife and children.”可排除A和D，由下文可知C也不合题意。 3. Mrs. Woo and her family didn’t get hurt because _________. A. her husband knew there would be a storm B. they were all outside the house when the storm became worse C. she felt the house was moving
核电与核辐射 1986 年4 月26 日，切尔诺贝利核电站的一个反应堆发生爆炸，将相当于400 颗广岛原子弹的放射性尘降物散布到整个北半球。在此之前，科学家对辐射对植物和野生动物的影响 几乎一无所知。这场灾难创造了一个活生生的实验室，尤其是在这个被称为禁区的1100 平方英里的区域。 1994 年，德州理工大学生物学教授罗纳德·切瑟和罗伯特·贝克是首批获准完全进入该区域的美国科学家之一。“我们抓了一群田鼠，它们看起来和野草一样健康。我们对此非 常着迷。”贝克回忆说。当Baker 和Chesser 对田鼠的DNA 进行测序时，他们没有发现 异常的突变率。他们还注意到狼、猞猁和其他曾经稀有的物种在这片区域游荡，仿佛这里 是原子野生动物保护区。2003 年由一组联合国机构建立的切尔诺贝利论坛发表了声明一份关于灾难20 周年的报告证实了这一观点，称“环境条件对该地区的生物群落产生了积极 影响”，将其转变为“一个独特的生物多样性保护区”。 五年前，贝克和切塞尔在这片区域搜寻田鼠。Mousseau 到切尔诺贝利去数鸟，发现了与之相矛盾的证据。穆萨乌是南卡罗莱纳大学的生物学教授，他的合作者安德斯·佩普·穆 勒现在是巴黎南方大学生态、系统学和进化实验室的研究主任。他们发现该地区家燕的数 量要少得多，而那些存活下来的家燕则遭受着寿命缩短、(雄性)生育能力下降、大脑变小、肿瘤、部分白化病(一种基因突变)以及白内障发病率更高的痛苦。在过去13 年发表的60 多篇论文中，Mousseau 和Moller 指出，暴露在低水平辐射下对该区域的整个生物圈产生 了负面影响，从微生物到哺乳动物，从昆虫到鸟类。 包括贝克在内的批评人士对穆萨和穆勒持批评态度。贝克在2006 年与切塞尔合著的《美国科学家》(American Scientist)文章中指出，该区域“实际上已成为一个保护区”，穆萨和穆勒的“令人难以置信的结论只得到了间接证据的支持”。 我们所知道的关于电离辐射对健康影响的几乎所有信息都来自于一项正在进行的对原子弹幸存者的研究，该研究被称为寿命研究，简称LSS。辐射暴露的安全标准基于LSS。然而，LSS 留下了关于低剂量辐射影响的大问题没有得到解答。大多数科学家都同意，没有所谓 的“安全”辐射剂量，无论剂量有多小。小剂量是我们最不了解的。LSS 并没有告诉我们多 少低于100 毫西弗(mSv)的剂量。例如，引起基因突变需要多少辐射，这些突变是可遗传 的吗?辐射诱发的疾病(如癌症)的机制和遗传生物标记物是什么? 三重危机2011年 3月福岛第一核电站创建另一个生活摩梭实验室和穆勒可以研究低 剂量的辐射,复制他们的切尔诺贝利核事故研究和允许他们“更高的信心,影响我们看到有关辐射,而不是其他因素,“摩梭说。福岛310平方英里的隔离区比切尔诺贝利小，但在其他方面 是一样的。这两个区域都包括被遗弃的农田、森林和城市地区，在这些地区，辐射水平在 短距离内变化数量级。而且几乎可以肯定，他们进入福岛的速度比科学家进入苏联控制的 切尔诺贝利的速度还要快。简而言之，福岛事件提供了一个解决争议的机会。 福岛核事故发生后的几个月里，穆萨乌和莫勒就开始在这座正在冒烟的核电站以西受污染的山林里清点鸟类数量，但他们无法进入这个区域，亲眼看看家燕的情况。最后，在2013 年6 月，穆萨乌是首批获准完全进入福岛禁区的科学家之一。 对辐射的敏感度在生物和同一物种的个体之间有很大的差异，这是重要的原因之一，不要从蝴蝶推断到家燕或从田鼠推断到人类。蝴蝶对辐射特别敏感，Mousseau 说。2012年8 月，在线期刊《科学报告》(Scientific Report)发表了一篇论文，研究福岛核泄漏对淡草蓝 蝶的影响。冲绳县琉球大学的生物学教授大木若二(Joji Otaki)透露，在这种不雅行为发生两个月后，在福岛附近采集的蝴蝶出现了翅膀、腿和眼睛畸形的情况。Mousseau 和Moller 对切尔诺贝利和福岛昆虫的调查显示，蝴蝶作为一个群体数量急剧下降。但御宅族
年考研英语阅读理解全文翻译.doc
————————————————————————————————作者：————————————————————————————————日期：
Text1 Habits are a funny thing. We reach for them mindlessly, setting our brains on auto-pilot and relaxing into the u nconscious comfort of familiar routine. “Not choice, but habit rules the unreflecting herd,” William Wordsworth said in the 19th century. In the ever-changing 21st century, even the word “habit” carries a negative connotation. So it seems antithetical to talk about habits in the same context as creativity and innovation. 习惯是件有趣的事情。我们无意识间养成了一些习惯，我们的大脑是自动运转的，轻松进入熟知套路所带来的不自觉舒适状态。“这并非选择，而是习惯控制了那些没有思想的人”，这是威廉?华兹华斯（William Wordsworth）19世纪时说的话。在现在这个日新月异的21世纪，甚至习惯这个词本身也带有负面涵义。因此，在创造和革新的背景下来谈论习惯，似乎显得有点矛盾。 But brain researchers have discovered that when we consciously develop new habits, we create parallel synaptic paths, and even entirely new brain cells, that can jump our trains of thought onto new, innovative tracks. But don’t bother trying to kill off old habits; once those ruts of procedure are worn into the hippocampus, they’re there to stay. Instead, the new habits we deliberately ingrain into ourselves create parallel pathways that can bypass those old roads. 但大脑研究人员发现，当我们有意识地培养新的习惯的时候，我们创建了平行路径，甚至是全新的脑细胞，可以让我们的思路跳转到新的创新轨道上来。但是，不必费心试图摈弃各种旧习惯；一旦这些程序惯例融进大脑，它们就会留在那里。相反，我们刻意培养的新习惯会创建平行路径能避开原来那些老路。 “The first thing needed for innovation is a fascination with wonder,” says Dawna Markova, author of “The Open Mind” and an executive change consultant for Professional Th inking Partners. “But we are taught instead to ‘decide,’ just as our president calls himself ‘the Decider.’ ” She adds, however, that “to decide is to kill off all possibilities but one. A good innovational thinker is always exploring the many other possib ilities.”
2009年考研英语阅读理解全文翻译.doc
Text1 Habits are a funny thing. We reach for them mindlessly, setting our brains on auto-pilot and relaxing into the unconscious comfort of familiar routine. “Not choice, but habit rules the unreflecting herd,” William Wordsworth sai d in the 19th century. In the ever-changing 21st century, even the word “habit” carries a negative connotation. So it seems antithetical to talk about habits in the same context as creativity and innovation. 习惯是件有趣的事情。我们无意识间养成了一些习惯，我们的大脑是自动运转的，轻松进入熟知套路所带来的不自觉舒适状态。“这并非选择，而是习惯控制了那些没有思想的人”，这是威廉?华兹华斯（William Wordsworth）19世纪时说的话。在现在这个日新月异的21世纪，甚至习惯这个词本身也带有负面涵义。因此，在创造和革新的背景下来谈论习惯，似乎显得有点矛盾。 But brain researchers have discovered that when we consciously develop new habits, we create parallel synaptic paths, and even entirely new brain cells, that can jump our trains of thought onto new, innovative tracks. But don’t bother trying to kill off old habits; once those ruts of procedure are worn into the hippocampus, they’re there to stay. Instead, the new habits we deli berately ingrain into ourselves create parallel pathways that can bypass those old roads. 但大脑研究人员发现，当我们有意识地培养新的习惯的时候，我们创建了平行路径，甚至是全新的脑细胞，可以让我们的思路跳转到新的创新轨道上来。但是，不必费心试图摈弃各种旧习惯；一旦这些程序惯例融进大脑，它们就会留在那里。相反，我们刻意培养的新习惯会创建平行路径能避开原来那些老路。 “The first thing needed for innovation is a fascination with wonder,” says Dawna Markova, author of “The Open Mind” and an executive change consultant for Professional Thinking Partners. “But we are taught instead to ‘decide,’ just as our president calls himself ‘the Decider.’ ” She a dds, however, that “to decide is to kill off all possibilities but one. A good innovational thinker is always exploring the many other possibilities.”
Unit 1 Genetically modified foods -- Feed the World? If you want to spark a heated debate at a dinner party, bring up the topic of genetically modified foods. For many people, the concept of genetically altered, high-tech crop production raises all kinds of environmental, health, safety and ethical questions. Particularly in countries with long agrarian traditions -- and vocal green lobbies -- the idea seems against nature. 如果你想在某次晚宴上挑起一场激烈的争论，那就提出转基因食品的话题吧。对许多人来说，高科技的转基因作物生产的概念会带来诸如环境、健康、安全和伦理等方面的各种问题。特别是在有悠久的农业生产传统和主张环保的游说集团的国家里，转基因食品的主意似乎有悖自然。 In fact, genetically modified foods are already very much a part of our lives. A third of the corn and more than half the soybeans and cotton grown in the US last year were the product of biotechnology, according to the Department of Agriculture. More than 65 million acres of genetically modified crops will be planted in the US this year. The genetic is out of the bottle. 事实上，转基因食品已经成为我们生活重要的一部分。根据农业部的统计，美国去年所种植玉米的1／3，大豆和棉花的一半以上都是生物技术的产物。今年，美国将种植6500多万英亩的转基因作物。基因妖怪已经从瓶子里跑出来了。 Yet there are clearly some very real issues that need to be resolved. Like any new product entering the food chain, genetically modified foods must be subjected to rigorous testing. In wealthy countries, the debate about biotech is tempered by the fact that we have a rich array of foods to choose from -- and a supply that far exceeds our needs. In developing countries desperate to feed fast-growing and underfed populations; the issue is simpler and much more urgent: Do the benefits of biotech outweigh the risks? 但是，显然还有一些非常现实的问题需要解决。就像任何一种要进入食物链的新食品一样，转基因食品必须经过严格的检验。在富裕的国家里，由于有大量丰富的食品可供选择，而且供应远远超过需求，所以关于生物技术的争论相对缓和一些。在迫切想要养活其迅速增长而又吃不饱的人口的发展中国家，问题比较简单，也更加紧迫：生物技术的好处是否大于风险呢? The statistics on population growth and hunger are disturbing. Last year the world's population reached 6 billion. And by 2050, the UN estimates, it will probably near 9 billion. Almost all that growth will occur in developing countries. At the same time, the world's available cultivable land per person is declining. Arable land has