北外考研同声传译基础英语真题.doc

2001年基础英语试卷I. Read the following article and paraphrase the underlined sentence. A nation divided What to do about the over widening gulf between rich and poor? Mortimer B. Zuckerman We are becoming two nations. The prosperous are rapidly getting more prosperous and the poor are slowly getting poorer. George W. Bush did well to rebuke his party when House Republicans maneuvered to balance the budget by proposing to delay the earned income tax credit for the working poor paying it in monthly installments rather than an animal lump sum. “I dont think they ought to balance the budget on the backs of the poor,”1 Bush said. Instead, it is time for aspiring leaders to ponder how the two nations might more closely become one. The American economy is growing dramatically. But this prosperity is being distributed very unevenly. The America that is doing well is doing very well indeed. But most benefits have gone to those who work in industries where the main product is information. The losers have been the producers of tangible goods and personal services even teachers and health care providers. The high-tech information economy has been growing at approximately 10 times the rate of the older industrial economy. It has enjoyed substantial job growth, the highest productivity gains (about 30 percent a year), and bigger profits. It can therefore afford bigger wage gains (about four times that of the older economy). And this wage gap is likely to widen for years to come. The rich get richer. The concentration of wealth is even more dramatic. New York University economist Edward Wolff points out that the top 20 percent of Americans account for more than 100 percent of the total growth in wealth from 1983 to 1997 while the bottom 80 percent lost 7 percent. Another study found that the top 1 percent saw their after-tax income jump 115 percent in the past 22 years. The top fifth have seen an after-tax increase of 43 percent during the same period while the bottom fifth of all Americans including many working mothers have seen their after-tax incomes fall 9 percent. The result is that 4 out of 5 households some 217 million people will take home a thinner slice of the economic pie than they did 22 years ago.2There are those who point out that these income figures do not fully reflect the improvement in the standard of living and say that attention should be paid to what Americans own, what they buy, and how they live. A fair point.3 Two economists, W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, have revealed that each person in the average household today has 814 square feet of living space compared with 478 square feet in 1970; that 62 percent of all households own two or more vehicles compared with 29 percent back then; that the number of gas ranges has increased six-fold, air travel four times, and the median household wealth i.e., the family right in the middle has jumped dramatically. Even given such improvements in life quality, our public policy must not exacerbate the disproportionate concentrations of wealth.4Fortunately, Americans are pragmatists. They know that what you earn depends on what you learn, especially in a digital economy; so 83 percent of our children now complete four years of high school, compared with 55 percent in 1970. This is good news. But vast numbers of people feel marginalized in an information-based economy.5 For too many, work no longer provides the kinds of wages and promotions that allow them to achieve economic success or security. Wage increases do not substantially increase their real income, so they have to work longer hours, get a higher-paying shift, or find another job. These are the people who are particularly concerned about the benefits they stand to gain from Medicare and Social Security.6 If they do manage to put together a successful strategy to survive, they should not be hit with sudden shocks like the denial of the lump-sum tax credit. Bush may have discomfited his Republican colleagues, but his words served to remind that they are out of touch with the realities of life for so many Americans. He later softened his criticism, but it is time, nevertheless, for a more generous leadership from the House Republicans. They should not berate Bush. Indeed, they may well find themselves in his debt should his appeal to the center of American politics provide them the coattails they will need when voters head to the polls in just over a year.7 1. Explain the underlined part in English, bringing out the implied meaning, if there is any: (22 1) I dont think of the poor (3%) 2) The result is 22 years ago (3%) 3) A fair point (2%) 4) Our public policy wealth (3%) 5) Vast numbers economy (3%) 6) These are Social Security (3%) 7) They may well find over a year. (5%) 2. Answer the following questions briefly and to the point (13%): 1) What does it mean by the title “ A Nation Divided”? (3%) 2) What is the main reason for the widening gap of income, according to the writer? (5%) 3) How does the writer propose to solve the problem? (5%) II. Translate the following into Chinese (25%) 1. I cant thank you enough. (2%) 2. He suggested to me that more was to be gained than lost by full disclosure. I could not have agreed more. (2%) 3. They could hardly have been more wrong. (2%) 4. The conspirators had ganged together, their confidence growing with their number. (2%) 5. Greed of money is not one of his faults. (2%) 6. The convention brought time, it could not bring settlement. (2%) 7. The treaty was approved by the Senate, with only one vote to spare. (2%) 8. We agree to disagree without being disagreeable. (2%) 9. His past is no more immune to scrutiny than anyone elses. (2%) 10. He knew that I knew that he guessed that I had guessed “Minister Williams” was Bill Stephenson. (2%) 11. The novels of Terror, set in some vague but picturesque foreign country and in some vague but picturesque historic period, told of haunted castles and sinister monks and mysterious crimes and high-born villains intent on the ruin of high born beautiful maidens. (5%) III. Translate the following passage into English (40%) 秋风里的巴黎 一下飞机，已经感受到巴黎的秋末了，刮起了略寒的风，空气中水分很足，润润的。冷风突然叫我兴奋起来:我终于来到心向往之的世界最美的城市巴黎。我轻轻地唤醒自己:“巴黎就在眼前”。 说到法国人，人们马上就会联想到他们的浪漫、幻想，联想到拿破仑，联想到伏尔泰，当然，也会想到巴黎圣母院中美丽的少女和善良的打钟人. 第二天，随“欧洲非常之旅”车队到凯旋们拍摄，一路上看到了熟悉的艾菲尔铁塔、卢浮宫、圣母院大教堂、还有很多叫不出名的古典建筑、博物馆和纪念馆。巴黎的著名景观很集中，有点像北京的天安门广场，站在一个地方向四周一看，全都是名胜古迹。 拍摄车队开车绕巴黎最著名的协和广场一圈，四周到处是著名景点。协和广场与凯旋门遥遥相对，两者以繁盛的香榭丽舍大道连接，广场一带的建筑物很古雅，衬托着这里大喷泉和铜像，充满欧洲的艺术色彩。矗立于广场中心的纪念碑，是1831年埃及“赠送”给法国的纪念碑。此座古迹有三千三百多年的历史。从这里前往香榭丽舍大道，熙来攘往的车辆及远处的凯旋门，让人感到蕴藏在这个繁闹大都市中的那一种难以想象的艺术魅力。面向凯旋门朝左前方眺望，还可以看到巴黎铁塔。 我们来到于铁塔同为法国巴黎象征的凯旋门。这是当年拿破仑为纪念法军战胜奥俄联军而建造的。凯旋门高45米，门顶是一个瞭望台，可以看到香榭丽舍大道和12条以凯旋门为中心，向四面八方伸展的放射形大道的全景。门内则有一把永恒之火，是纪念1914年至1918年第一次世界大战为国捐躯的军人而点燃。 Voltaire 伏尔泰 The Hunchback of Notre-Dame 巴黎圣母院 Eiffel Tower 艾菲尔铁塔 The Louvre 卢浮宫 Notre-Dame de Paris 圣母院大教堂 Palace de la Concorde 协和广场 Arch of Triumph 凯旋门 Champs-Elyses Avenue 香榭丽舍大道I. 将下列短文译成英语（35） 不久前美国宇航局宣布，他们测得的数据显示，在最近两个月，南极上空的臭氧空洞已扩大到智利南部城市篷塔阿雷纳斯（Punta Arenas）上空。这是迄今人类所观测到的最大一个空洞。更为严重的是，这也是臭氧空洞第一次覆盖一个人口稠密的城市。 许多人对臭氧的作用并不陌生，臭氧距地面约2530公里，能吸收99的太阳紫外线，可以说，它是地球生态环境的天然屏障，也是人类繁衍生存的保护伞。据科学家测算，大气中臭氧含量每减少1，太阳紫外线的辐射量就会增加2，而人类皮肤癌患者就会增加5至7。 但现在，可以说一个城市的所有居民就处在集体患皮肤癌的危险中。为了居民的身体健康，篷塔阿雷纳斯机器临近地区被迫宣布进入紧急的状态。着很可能也是人类第一次因臭氧空洞问题而进入紧急状态。篷塔阿雷纳斯卫生部门再三告诫市民，最好不要在中午11点到下午3点之间外出，因为在阳光下曝晒7分钟左右，皮肤就会受到损伤。 据科学家们观测，臭氧空洞目前已达到2800多万平方公里，而造成臭氧空洞的，正是人类在工业生产中不断释放出氟利昂等化学物质，才使臭氧越来越稀薄，最后形成了现在这个巨大无比的空洞。虽然这次臭氧空洞过大，还因为南极大陆的气温不断升高所致，但气温的升高，又与人类大量释放二氧化碳又直接的关系。 但愿篷塔阿雷纳斯的警报使第一次，也是最后一次！ II. 将下列单句译成英语（15） 1. 我们诚心诚意地希望不发生战争，争取长时间的和平，集中精力搞好国内现代化建设。 2. 冷战后，世界形势出现了重大的变化，两极格局宣告终结，多极化成为国际格局演变的主导方向。 3. 近些年来，在经济全球化的冲击下，原有的分工格局和资源配置方式正在发生历史性的重要转变。发达国家在调整，新兴工业化国家、发展中国家和经济转轨国家也在调整，尽管调整内容、难点各不相同。 III. 将下列短文译成汉语（35） Sanctions are a blunt instrument that can sometimes be useful. Used against Iraq, they forced its horrible dictator to disgorge nearly all his most lethal weapons. Ten years on, the perspective has changed. Saddam Hussein remains implanted in power without, for the past 15 months, any UN inspectors on the spot to discourage him from reinventing his nastiest toys. At the same time, sanctions have all but destroyed his country: its health and educational systems have collapsed; its infrastructure has rusted away; its middle classes have disappeared into poverty; its children are dying. A lot of people now conclude that a change of policy is needed. The oil-for-food program, passed by the UN Security Council in 1996, was supposed to rescue ordinary Iraqis from the deprivations of sanctions. Iraq is allowed to sell a certain amount of oil in exchange for “humanitarian” goods. Denis Halliday, an experienced UN hand, ran this program for two years, but then resigned in disgust (as did his successor, a few weeks ago). Mr. Halliday now writes forthrightly of “genocide”. He and others describe how American and British representatives on the Sanctions committee hold up everything they suspect, however remotely, to be on dual use. The list of suspect goods run from heart and lung machines to wheelbarrow, from the fire-fighting equipment to detergent, from water pumps to pencils. Some of these points were confirmed this month by Kofi Annan , the UNs secretary-general, in his report on Iraqi sanctions to the Security council. He revealed how far the oil-for-food program still is from alleviating Iraqi tragedy. Mr. Annan has spread his criticism around but is particularly upset, first, by the dangerously dilapidated state of Iraqs oil industry and, second, by the Sanctions Committees erratic delays in giving the go-ahead for the delivery of goods for hospitals: some $150m worth of medicine and medical equipment is currently held up. At one time, outsiders were se