2004年-2007年英语历年考研真题阅读翻译.doc

2007年Text 1 If you were to examine the birth certificates of every soccer player in 2006s World Cup tournament, you would most likely find a noteworthy quirk: elite soccer players are more likely to have been born in the earlier months of the year than in the later months. If you then examined the European national youth teams that feed the World Cup and professional ranks, you would find this strange phenomenon to be even more pronounced. What might account for this strange phenomenon? Here are a few guesses: a) certain astrological signs confer superior soccer skills; b) winter-born babies tend to have higher oxygen capacity, which increases soccer stamina; c) soccer-mad parents are more likely to conceive children in springtime, at the annual peak of soccer mania; d) none of the above. Anders Ericsson, a 58-year-old psychology professor at Florida State University, says he believes strongly in “none of the above.” Ericsson grew up in Sweden, and studied nuclear engineering until he realized he would have more opportunity to conduct his own research if he switched to psychology. His first experiment, nearly 30 years ago, involved memory: training a person to hear and then repeat a random series of numbers. “With the first subject, after about 20 hours of training, his digit span had risen from 7 to 20,” Ericsson recalls. “He kept improving, and after about 200 hours of training he had risen to over 80 numbers.” This success, coupled with later research showing that memory itself is not genetically determined, led Ericsson to conclude that the act of memorizing is more of a cognitive exercise than an intuitive one. In other words, whatever inborn differences two people may exhibit in their abilities to memorize, those differences are swamped by how well each person “encodes” the information. And the best way to learn how to encode information meaningfully, Ericsson determined, was a process known as deliberate practice. Deliberate practice entails more than simply repeating a task. Rather, it involves setting specific goals, obtaining immediate feedback and concentrating as much on technique as on outcome. Ericsson and his colleagues have thus taken to studying expert performers in a wide range of pursuits, including soccer. They gather all the data they can, not just performance statistics and biographical details but also the results of their own laboratory experiments with high achievers. Their work makes a rather startling assertion: the trait we commonly call talent is highly overrated. Or, put another way, expert performers whether in memory or surgery, ballet or computer programming are nearly always made, not born.Text 1 如果你打算在2006年世界杯锦标赛上调查所有足球运动员的出生证明，那么你很有可能发现一个引人注目的巧合：优秀足球运动员更可能出生于每年的前几个月而不是后几个月。如果你接着调查世界杯和职业比赛的欧洲国家青年队的话，那么你会发现这一奇怪的现象甚至更明显。 什么可以解释这一奇怪的现象呢？下面是一些猜测：a）某种占星术征兆使人具备更高的足球技能；b）冬季出生的婴儿往往具有更高的供氧能力，这增加了踢足球的持久力；c）热爱足球的父母更可能在春季（每年足球狂热的鼎盛时期）怀孕；d）以上各项都不是。 58岁的安德斯埃里克森是佛罗里达州立大学的一名心理学教授，他说，他坚信“以上各项都不是”这一猜测。在瑞典长大的埃里克森，一直研究核工程，直到他认识到，如果他转向心理学领域，他将会有更多机会从事自己的研究。他的首次试验是在大约30年以前进行的，与记忆相关：训练一个人先听一组任意挑选的数字，然后复述这些数字。“在经过大约20小时的训练之后，第一个试验对象（复述）的数字跨度从7个上升到20个，” 埃里克森回忆说。“该试验对象不断进步，在接受大约200个小时的训练后，他复述的数字已经达到80多个。” 这一成功，连同后来证明的记忆本身不是遗传决定的研究，使得埃里克森得出结论，即记忆过程是一种认知练习，而不是一种本能练习。换句话说，无论两个人在记忆力能力上可能存在怎样的天生差异，这些差异都会被每个人如何恰当地“解读”所记的信息所掩盖。埃里克森确信，了解如何有目的地解读信息的最佳方法就是一个为人所知的有意练习过程。有意练习需要的不仅仅是简单地重复一个任务。相反，它包括确定明确的目标、获得即时的反馈以及技术与结果的浓缩。 因此，埃里克森和他的同事开始研究包括足球领域在内的广泛领域中专业执行者。他们收集了能够收集的所有资料，不只是表现方面的统计数据和传记详细资料，还包括他们自己对取得很高成就的人员进行的实验室实验结果。他们的研究得出了一个非常令人惊奇的结论我们通常称为天分的特征被高估了。或者，换句话说，专业执行者无论是在记忆还是手术方面，在芭蕾还是计算机编程领域几乎总是培养的，而不是天生的。 Text 2 For the past several years, the Sunday newspaper supplement Parade has featured a column called “Ask Marilyn.” People are invited to query Marilyn vos Savant, who at age 10 had tested at a mental level of someone about 23 years old; that gave her an IQ of 228 the highest score ever recorded. IQ tests ask you to complete verbal and visual analogies, to envision paper after it has been folded and cut, and to deduce numerical sequences, among other similar tasks. So it is a bit confusing when vos Savant fields such queries from the average Joe (whose IQ is 100) as, Whats the difference between love and fondness? Or what is the nature of luck and coincidence? Its not obvious how the capacity to visualize objects and to figure out numerical patterns suits one to answer questions that have eluded some of the best poets and philosophers. Clearly, intelligence encompasses more than a score on a test. Just what does it mean to be smart? How much of intelligence can be specified, and how much can we learn about it from neurology, genetics, computer science and other fields? The defining term of intelligence in humans still seems to be the IQ score, even though IQ tests are not given as often as they used to be. The test comes primarily in two forms: the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and the Wechsler Intelligence Scales (both come in adult and childrens version). Generally costing several hundred dollars, they are usually given only by psychologists, although variations of them populate bookstores and the World Wide Web. Superhigh scores like vos Savants are no longer possible, because scoring is now based on a statistical population distribution among age peers, rather than simply dividing the mental age by the chronological age and multiplying by 100. Other standardized tests, such as the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and the Graduate Record Exam (GRE), capture the main aspects of IQ tests. Such standardized tests may not assess all the important elements necessary to succeed in school and in life, argues Robert J. Sternberg. In his article “How Intelligent Is Intelligence Testing?”, Sternberg notes that traditional test best assess analytical and verbal skills but fail to measure creativity and practical knowledge, components also critical to problem solving and life success. Moreover, IQ tests do not necessarily predict so well once populations or situations change. Research has found that IQ predicted leadership skills when the tests were given under low-stress conditions, but under high-stress conditions, IQ was negatively correlated with leadership that is, it predicted the opposite. Anyone who has toiled through SAT will testify that test-taking skill also matters, whether its knowing when to guess or what questions to skip.Text 2 在过去的几年，星期日报的增刊漫步开设了一个名为“询问玛丽琳”的专栏。人们被邀请去询问玛丽琳沃斯萨文特，玛丽琳沃斯萨文特在10岁时测试的智力水平达到别人23岁时的水平，这使得她的智商高达228是有记录的最高水平。智商测试要求你完成口头和视觉分析，要求你在纸张被折叠、剪切后想象它的形状，要求你推论数字的顺序，还有其他类似的项目。所以，当沃斯萨文特面对普通人（智商为100）提出的像“热爱与喜爱之间的区别是什么？”或者“运气与巧合的特征是什么？”这样的问题时，她感到有点困惑。设想物体、判断数字模式的能力如何使一个人能够回答难倒了一些最杰出的诗人和哲学家的问题，这可并不那么显而易见。 毫无疑问，智力包含的不仅仅是一次测试所得的分数。而聪明意味着什么？可以明确显示智力有多少？我们能够从神经学、遗传学、计算机科学以及其他领域了解的智力又有多少？ 人类有关智力的定义性术语似乎仍然是智商分数，即使人们并不像以前那样经常进行智商测试。智商测试主要表现为两种形式：斯坦福比奈特智力衡量表和威斯勒智力衡量表（两种都包含成人和儿童测试类型）。由于这些测试一般要花费几百美元，因此通常只有心理学家才进行这些测试，尽管这些测试的变种存在于书店和环球网上。像沃斯萨文特得到这样的超高分数也再不可能，因为现在的分数依据的是相同年龄者的统计学群体分布状况，而不是简单地通过实足年龄乘以100来划分智能年龄。其他标准测试，比如学术能力检测以及研究生入学考试，包含了智商测试的主要方面。 罗伯特杰斯顿伯格认为，这样的标准测试不可能评估在学校和生活中取得成功所需的所有重要因素。在其名为“智力测试如何明智？”的文章中，斯顿伯格指出，传统的测试最恰当地评估了分析能力和语言表达能力，但没有测量创造性和实际知识，这些也是解决问题和在生活中取得成功的关键因素。而且，一旦种群或环境发生变化，智商测试就不一定预测得那么准确。研究发现，如果在低压力状况下进行智商测试，那么这种测试就可以预测出领导才能，但是，在高压力状况下，智商测试所得的结果与领导才能的关系是否定的，也就是说，它预测的结果是相反的。任何经历过学术能力检测的人都会认为，应试能力也很重要，无论是知道何时应该进行推测，还是知道应该忽略什么问题。 Text 3 During the past generation, the American middle-class family that once could count on hard work and fair play to keep itself financially secure had been transformed by economic risk and new realities. Now a pink slip, a bad diagnosis, or a disappearing spouse can reduce a family from solidly middle class to newly poor in a few months. In just one generation, millions of mothers have gone to work, transforming basic family economics. Scholars, policymakers, and critics of all stripes have debated the social implications of these changes, but few have looked at the side effect: family risk has risen as well. Todays families have budgeted to the limits of their new two-paycheck status. As a result, they have lost the parachute they once had in times of financial setback a back-up earner (usually Mom) who could go into the workforce if the primary earner got laid off or fell sick. This “added-worker effect” could support the safety net offered by unemployment insurance or disability insurance to help families weather bad times. But today, a disruption to family fortunes can no longer be made up with extra income from an otherwise-stay-at-home partner. During the same period, families have been asked to absorb much more risk in their retirement income. Steelworkers, airline employees, and now those in the auto industry are joining millions of families who must worry about interest rates, stock market fluctuation, and the harsh reality that they may outlive their retirement money. For much of the past year, President Bush campaigned to move Social Security to a saving-account model, with retirees trading much or all of their guaranteed payments for payments depending on investment returns. For younger families, the picture is not any better. Both the absolute cost of healthcare and the share of it borne by families have risen and newly fashionable health-savings plans are spreading from legislative halls to Wal-Mart workers, with much higher deductibles and a large new dose of investment risk for families future healthcare. Even demographics are working against the middle class family, as the odds of having a weak elderly parent and all the attendant need for physical and financial assistance have jumped eightfold in just one generation. From the middle-class family perspective, much of this, understandably, looks far less like an opportunity to exercise more financial responsibility, and a good deal more like a frightening acceleration of the wholesale shift of financial risk onto their already overburdened shoulders. The financial fallout has begun, and the political fallout may not be far behind.在过去的十几年里，美国那些曾经可以依靠辛勤劳动和公平条件以维持其收入稳定的中产阶层家庭被经济风险和新现实改变了。如今，一份解雇通知书、一个不利的诊断结果或者配偶的去世都可能在几个月之内将一个家庭从稳定的中产阶层家庭降格成为一个新贫困家庭。 在仅仅一代人的时间里，数百万母亲出去工作，改变了基本的家庭经济状况。学者、决策者以及各类批评人士对这些变化的社会意义争论不休，但是，很少有人关注这些变化的副作用：家庭的风险增加了。如今的家庭根据其新的双收入限度安排开支。因此，它们失去了它们在经济萧条时期曾经有过的缓解举措一个后备挣钱者（通常是妈妈），如果家庭的主要挣钱者失业了或者病倒了，她可以出去工作。这种“额外工人效应”可以支撑失业保险或残疾保险提供的安全网，以便帮助家庭渡过难关。但现在，家庭财产的损失再也不可能通过呆在家里的其他伴侣的额外收入弥补了。 在同一时期，要求家庭在其退休收入中承担更多风险。钢铁厂的工人、航空公司的职员以及汽车产业工人加入了数百万不得不担心利率、股市波动以及可能比其退休收入存在时间更长的严酷现实家庭。在去年的大部分时间里，布什总统一直致力于将社会保险体制转变成一种储蓄存款账户模式，要求退休人员将其大多数或所有保障报酬用来交换依靠投资回报所得的报酬。对于更年轻的家庭来说，前景不容乐观。卫生保健和家庭承担份额的绝对成本都上涨了而且，最近实施的健康储蓄计划正在从立法机关扩展到沃尔玛员工，包含大量更高的减免，并且给家庭未来的卫生保健带来许多新投资风险。甚至人口统计状况也对中产阶层家庭不利，因为有一个体弱、年迈的父母以及由此而产生的所有物资和经济援助就在仅仅一代人的时间里增长了8倍。 从中产阶层家庭的角度来看，大多数情况是可以理解的，这根本不像一种发挥更多支付能力的机会，而是像一种将经济风险大规模转向那些已经负担过重的家庭的令人恐惧的加速行为。经济副作用已经开始，政治副作用可能也将开始。Text 4It never rains but it pours. Just as bosses and boards have finally sorted out their worst accounting and compliance troubles, and improved their feeble corporation governance, a new problem threatens to earn them especially in America the sort of nasty headlines that inevitably lead to heads rolling in the executive suite: data insecurity. Left, until now, to odd, low-level IT staff to put right, and seen as a concern only of data-rich industries such as banking, telecoms and air travel, information protection is now high on the bosss agenda in businesses of every variety. Several massive leakages of customer and employee data this year from organizations as diverse as Time Warner, the American defense contractor Science Applications International Corp and even the University of California, Berkeley have left managers hurriedly peering into their intricate IT systems and business processes in search of potential vulnerabilities. “Data is becoming an asset which needs to be guarded as much as any other asset,” says Haim Mendelson of Stanford Universitys business school. “The ability to guard customer data is the key to market value, which the board is responsible for on behalf of shareholders.” Indeed, just as there is the concept of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), perhaps it is time for GASP, Generally Accepted Security Practices, suggested Eli Noam of New Yorks Columbia Business School. “Setting the proper investment level for security, redundancy, and recovery is a management issue, not a technical one,” he says. The mystery is that this should come as a surprise to any boss. Surely it should be obvious to the dimmest executive that trust, that most valuable of economic assets, is easily destroyed and hugely expensive to restore and that few things are more likely to destroy trust than a company letting sensitive personal data get into the wrong hands. The current state of affairs may have been encouraged though not justified by the lack of legal penalty (in America, but not Europe) for data leakage. Until California recently passed a law, American firms did not have to tell anyone, even the victim, when data went astray. That may change fast: lots of proposed data-security legislation is now doing the rounds in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, the theft of information about some 40 million credit-card accounts in America, disclosed on June 17th, overshadowed a hugely important decision a day earlier by Americas Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that puts corporate America on notice that regulators will act if firms fail to provide adequate data security.不鸣则已，一鸣惊人（本来从不下雨的,却下起了倾盆大雨）。就在老板和董事会用最终挑选出其最严重的清算帐目和顺从问题以及改善其无效的公司管理之际，一个新的问题预示着让他们特别是在美国赢得那种令人不愉快的头条新闻的危险，这些头条新闻不可避免地给这些领导者带来管理方面的附属效应：信息的不安全性。迄今为止，信息保护工作一直被留给临时的、低层次的信息技术人员承担，并且只被看成是信息资源丰富产业所关切的一个方面，比如银行业、电信业以及航空旅行业，如今，信息保护则成为各类商业老板议事日程中需要优先考虑的问题。今年，好几次消费者和员工信息的重大泄密事件使得管理人员匆忙检查其复杂的信息系统和商业程序，以便寻找潜在的弱点这些泄密事件发生在像时代华纳、美国国防部承包的科学应用国际公司以及加州大学伯克利分校这样的不同机构。斯坦福大学商学院的海姆门德尔森认为“信息正在成为一种需要像保护其他财产一样而保护的财产”。“保护消费者信息的能力是市场价值的关键因素，这是董事会应该为了股东的利益而承担的责任”。纽约哥伦比亚商学院的埃尼诺姆暗示，事实上，正如存在公认会计原则的观念一样，或许可能应该是采取公认安全措施的时候了。他表示“为安全、备份以及恢复确定适当的投资标准是一个管理问题，不是技术问题。”。其神秘在于，对任何老板来说，这可能是一个意外。然而，对于最迟钝的管理人员来说，显而易见的应该是，作为最珍贵经济财产的诚信被轻易破坏，而要恢复诚信却代价高昂，而且，很少有什么比一个公司让敏感的个人信息落入不妥当人之手更可能破坏诚信的了。这类事情的现状可能受到缺乏有关信息泄露的法律处罚（在美国，不是在欧洲）的激励，尽管还没有的到证实。直到加利福尼亚最近通过了一项法律，美国的公司不必告知任何人信息何时泄露，甚至包括受害人。这种情况可能迅速改变：如今，许多被提议的信息保护立法正在华盛顿特区讨论。同时，6月17日有关偷窃大约4000万信用卡账户信息事件的披露给得此前一天美国商务委员会的一个重要决定蒙上阴影，该决定请全美国注意，如果公司没有提供适当的信息安全保护措施，那么监管人员就会采取行动。2006年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 are 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 could 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. 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 todays 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. 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 majority 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 home ownership rate of 75.6 percent, higher than the 69.8 percent rate among native-born Americans. Foreign-born Asians and Hispanics “have higher rates of 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. 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 immigrants living within the United States remain somehow immune to the nations assimilative power.” Are there divisive issues and pockets of seething anger in America? Indeed. It is big enough to have a bit of everything. But particularly when viewed against Americas turbulent past, todays social indices hardly suggest a dark and deteriorating social environment.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话语的统一以及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发起的随意消费及没有消费的活动。他们不是为了迎合有知识的精英们而开设亲情商店，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。 尽管这种文化一点也不高雅，但也不是完全有害的，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3.1位新来的移民；而在1890年以前的十年之中，每千位居民当中就有9.2位移民。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。 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1965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%。 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注意到，世界边远地区的儿童是诸如阿诺德施瓦辛格和加斯布鲁克斯等超级明星的星迷，而“一些美国人担心生活在美国的移民在某种程度上并不受美国的同化力量的影响。”在美国是否存在不和以及潜在的不安？答案是肯定的，而且