考研英语阅读真题正文+全文翻译(1995-2010)[1].doc

2010 Text 1 Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching has been the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage. It is difficult to the point of impossibility for the average reader under the age of forty to imagine a time when high-quality arts criticism could be found in most big-city newspapers. Yet a considerable number of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews. To read such books today is to marvel at the fact that their learned contents were once deemed suitable for publication in general-circulation dailies. We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War II, at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament to the publications in which it appeared. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they covered. Theirs was a serious business, and even those reviewers who wore their learning lightly, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted to know what they were about. These men believed in journalism as a calling, and were proud to be published in the daily press. “So few authors have brains enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism,” Newman wrote, “that I am tempted to define journalism as a term of contempt applied by writers who are not read to writers who are.” Unfortunately, these critics are virtually forgotten. Neville Cardus, who wrote for the Manchester Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975, is now known solely as a writer of essays on the game of cricket. During his lifetime, though, he was also one of Englands foremost classical-music critics, a stylist so widely admired that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, the first music critic to be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of writings on music is unknown save to specialists. Is there any chance that Carduss criticism will enjoy a revival? The prospect seems remote. Journalistic tastes had changed long before his death, and postmodern readers have little use for the richly upholstered Vicwardian prose in which he specialized. Moreover, the amateur tradition in music criticism has been in headlong retreat. 在过去的25年英语报纸所发生的变化中，影响最深远的可能就是它们对艺术方面的报道在范围上毫无疑问的缩小了，而且这些报道的严肃程度也绝对降低了。 对于年龄低于40岁的普通读者来讲，让他们想象一下当年可以在许多大城市报纸上读到精品的文艺评论简直几乎是天方夜谭。然而，在20世纪出版的最重要的文艺评论集中，人们读到的大部分评论文章都是从报纸上收集而来。现在，如果读到这些集子，人们肯定会惊诧，当年这般渊博深奥的内容竟然被认为适合发表在大众日报中。 从20世纪早期到二战以前，当时的英国报纸上的评论主题广泛，包罗万象，我们现在离此类报纸评论越来越远。当时的报纸极其便宜，人们把高雅时尚的文艺批评当作是所刊登报纸的一个亮点。在那些遥远的年代，各大报刊的评论家们都会不遗余力地详尽报道他们所报道的事情，这在当时被视为是理所当然的事情。他们的写作是件严肃的事情，人们相信：甚至那些博学低调不喜欢炫耀的评论家，比如George Bernard Shaw和Ernest Newman也知道自己在做什么（即他们的文章会高调出现在报纸上）。这些批评家们相信报刊评论是一项职业，并且对于他们的文章能够在报纸上发表感到很自豪。“鉴于几乎没有作家能拥有足够的智慧或文学天赋以保证他们在新闻报纸写作中站稳脚跟”， Newman曾写道，“我倾向于把新闻写作定义为不受读者欢迎的作家用来嘲讽受读者欢迎的作家的一个 轻蔑之词 ” 不幸的是，这些批评家们现在实际上已被人们遗忘。从1917年开始一直到1975年去世不久前还在为曼彻斯特卫报写文章的Neville Cardus，如今仅仅作为一个撰写关于板球比赛文章的作家被人们所知。但是，在他的一生当中，他也是英国首屈一指的古典音乐评论家之一。他也是一位深受读者青睐的文体家，所以1947年他的自传一书就成为热销读物。 1967年他被授予爵士称号，也是第一位获此殊荣的音乐评论家。然而，他的书现在只有一本可以在市面上买到。他大量的音乐批评，除了专门研究音乐评论的人以外，已鲜为人知。 Cardus的评论有没有机会重新流行？前景似乎渺茫。在他去世之前，新闻业的品味早已改变很长时间了，而且他所擅长的措词华丽的维多利亚爱德华时期的散文风格对后现代的读者没有什么用处。何况，由业余爱好者作音乐批评的传统早已经成为昨日黄花了。 2010 Text 2 Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. A received one for its one-click online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box. Now the nations top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz the U.S. court of Appeals for the federal circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bilski, as the case is known , is a very big deal, says Dennis D. Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law. It has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents. Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with is 1998 decision in the so-called state Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, move established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice. The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the courts judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should reconsider its state street Bank ruling. The Federal Circuits action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for inventions that are obvious. The judges on the Federal circuit are reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court, says Harold C. Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School. 在过去的十年中，成千上万的商业方法被授予了专利权。亚马逊网站获得的专利是在线“单击”付费系统。美林公司的资产分配方案得到了法律保护。有个发明者的提箱技巧也获得了专利。 现在，该国最高专利法院似乎完全准备好要缩减商业方法专利，因为商业方法专利自从十年前第一次批准授予以来一直有争议。在一项使得知识产权律师们议论纷纷的提议中，美国联邦巡回上诉法院声称它将利用某个具体案件来对商业方法专利进行广泛的复审。密苏里大学法学院Dennis D. Crouch说，“正如人们所知道的那样，Bilski案例是一件非常大的事情”它可能将消除整个专利类别”。 对于商业方法诉求的限制是个戏剧性的彻底变化，因为正是联邦巡回法院自己引进了这种专利。那是在1998年，对于所谓的美国道富银行的案件中，联邦巡回法院做出了判决，批准了筹集共同基金资产的方法具有专利权。这一裁决使得商业方法专利文件以几何数级增加，起初只是一些新兴的网络公司对于某些特定类型的在线交易系统试图争取独家专有权。后来，更多的公司竞相添加这样的专利权，希望这样一个防御性的行为可以先下手为强。2005年，IBM公司在一份法院报告中声称：尽管怀疑这种专利授权的法律基础，但它已经申请了300多份商业方法专利。同样，当一些华尔街投资公司出席某些反对其金融产品的法庭案件时，他们会给其各类金融产品申请专利来作为自己的维权武器。 前面提到的Bilski案例牵扯到一份已申请的方法专利，即关于能源市场的风险规避方法（注：也可译为“套期保值或对冲风险”）。上诉法院罕见地裁定，该案件将不由三位法官听审，而是由全部十二名法官共同进行。另外，上诉法院还宣布，它想探讨的另一件事情是是否应该“重审”道富银行的裁决。 联邦巡回法院的这一裁决效仿了最高法院。最高法院最近做出了一系列的判决，缩小了专利持有者的受保范围。例如，去年四月，法官们认定太多的专利授予了一些显而易见的“发明”。乔治华盛顿大学法律学院的专利法律师Harold C. Wegner教授表示，“联邦巡回法院的法官们正在对最高法院的反专利动态做出反应”。 2010 Text 3 In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell argues that social epidemics are driven in large part by the acting of a tiny minority of special individuals, often called influentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well-connected. The idea is intuitively compelling, but it doesnt explain how ideas actually spread. The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible sounding but largely untested theory called the two step flow of communication: Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those selected people will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. In many such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing, promoting, or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends In their recent work, however, some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, they dont seem to be required of all. The researchers argument stems from a simple observing about social influence, with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfreywhose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, not interpersonal, influenceeven the most influential members of a population simply dont interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who, according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive social epidemics by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, each person so affected, must then influence his or her own acquaintances, who must in turn influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant, for example from the initial influential prove resistant, for example the cascade of change wont propagate very far or affect many people. Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of populations manipulating a number of variables relating of populations, manipulating a number of variables relating to peoples ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced. Our work shows that the principal requirement for what we call global cascades the widespread propagation of influence through networks is the presence not of a few influentials but, rather, of a critical mass of easily influenced people, each of whom adopts, say, a look or a brand after being exposed to a single adopting neighbor. Regardless of how influential an individual is locally, he or she can exert global influence only if this critical mass is available to propagate a chain reaction. 在引爆流行这本书中，作者Malcolm Gladwell认为社会流行潮流在很大程度上是由一小部分特殊个体的行为引起的，这些人就是人们常说的影响者。他们异乎寻常的博闻多识，能言善辩，人脉广泛。从直觉上讲，Malcolm Gladwell的理论似乎很有说服力，但是它没有解释流行观念的实际传播过程。 人们之所以认为影响者很重要，是因为受到了“两级传播”理论的影响，即信息先从媒体流向影响者，然后再从影响者流向其他人。这一理论看似合理，但未经验证。营销人员接受两级传播理论是因为该理论认为，如果他们能够找到影响者，并对他们施加影响，这些精英们就会替他们完成大部分的营销传播工作。这一理论似乎还可以解释某些装扮、品牌或社区为何会突然受到出乎意料的追捧。对于许多诸如此类的情况，如果只是走马观花地寻找原因，你会发现总是有一小群人开风气之先，率先穿上、宣传和开发人们此前从未留意的东西。这种事实证据与该观点正好一拍即合只有一些特别的人才能引领潮流。 但是，在最近的研究中，一些研究人员发现，影响者对社会流行潮流的影响力远比人们认为的要小。事实上，他们似乎根本就是无关紧要。 研究者的观点源于对社会影响力的简单观察：除了少数像Oprah Winfrey 这样的名人之外（她强大的人气影响力主要来自媒体影响力，而非她与观众互动的人际影响力），即使人群中最有影响力的人也无法与那么多的“其他人”互动，从而引领潮流。然而，根据两级传播理论，正是这些非名人影响者直接影响了他们的朋友和同事，从而推动了社会流行潮流。但是，要让一种社会流行潮流真正发生，每个受影响的人还必须影响他的熟人，而他的熟人又必须影响其他熟人，依此类推；但是会有多少人去关注这些熟人中的每个人，与最初的影响者几乎没有关系。举个例子来说，在这个人际影响的网络中，如果第一个影响者受到两次抵制，那么他的连锁影响范围就不会继续扩大，或者说影响的人不会很多。 基于这一人际影响力的基本事实，研究者们研究了社会影响的动力机制。我们对不同人群进行了成千上万次计算机模拟，不断调整人们影响他人和受他人影响的各种变量。他们发现，人们所说的“全球连锁反应” 影响力通过（人际）网络进行广泛传播 发生的主要前提，并不取决于是否存在着那么几个影响者，而主要取决于易受影响的人们是否达到了临界数量。 2010 Text 4 Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and its just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch. Unfortunately, banks lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult. After a bruising encounter with Congress, Americas Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognizing losses on long-term assets in their income statement. Bob Herz, the FASBs chairman, cried out against those who question our motives. Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobby group politely calls the use of judgment by management. European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to act without overall planning, but the pressure to fold when it completes it reconstruction of rules later this year is strong. Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did not live in a political vacuum but in the real word and that Europe could yet develop different rules. It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But banks shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are skeptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains. To get the system working again, losses must be recognized and dealt with. Americas new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostility from special interests. But by giving in to critics now they are inviting pressure to make more concessions. 台面上，银行家们将他们的麻烦归咎于己身，台面下，他们一直把目标对准他人：会计准则制定者。银行业抱怨会计规则迫使他们报告巨大损失，认为这不公平。规则规定他们必须以第三方付出价格来评估部分资产的价值，而非按照管理者和监管者期望该资产能够获得的价格。 不幸的是，银行的游说活动看来已显成效。其中细节可能无法获知，但是准则制定者在独立性方面这正是资产市场正常运行的关键已经做出妥协了。银行如果不以能够吸引买家的价格计量有毒资产，银行系统的复苏将会非常困难。 美国FASB（财务会计准则委员会）在与国会激烈摩擦之后，匆匆通过了规则的修改。这些修改使得银行在使用模型评估非流动资产方面用有更大的自由，同时使得它们确认收益表中长期资产损失时更为灵活。FASB主席Bob Herz大声反对那些“怀疑我们的动机”的人们。然而银行股票上涨了，这些修改强化了“管理层使用理性判断”的说法，这种说法是一个游说团的客气之言。 欧洲的部长们立刻要求国际会计准则委员会(IASB)也这么做。IASB表示它不想没有完整计划就冒然行动，但它在今年下半年完成规则修订时必须屈服的压力十分巨大。欧洲委员会委员Charlie McCreevy警告IASB说：它不是“处在政治真空中”而是“在现实世界里”，并表示欧洲可能最终会发展出不同的会计规则。 正是这些银行呆错了星球，它们的账目上充斥着估值过高的资产。现在他们争论道市价高估了损失，因为市价主要反映了市场的暂时性流动性不足，而非坏账的可能范围。几年中没人会知道真相。但是，银行股票以低于账面价值的价格交易，这一点反应了投资者的怀疑。死寂的市场一定程度上反应了瘫痪的银行由于怕账面损失既既不愿出售资产，也不愿意去购买那些看似不错的廉价资产。 为了让银行系统重新运转起来，损失必须被确认和处理。美国收购有毒资产的新计划只有在银行将资产定价在足够吸引买家的水平上才会有效。成熟的市场需要独立的，甚至是好斗的准则制定者。FASB和IASB以往正是这样对抗特殊利益集团的敌意的，例如改进股权和退休金的相关规则。但是现在向批评者妥协是自寻压力，他们会进一步做出让步。 2009 Text 1 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 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. 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 dont bother trying to kill off old habits; once those ruts of procedure are worn into the hippocampus, theyre there to stay. Instead, the new habits we deliberately ingrain into ourselves create parallel pathways that can bypass those old roads. 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 adds, however, that to decide is to kill off all possibilities but one. A good innovational thinker is always exploring the many other possibilities. All of us work through problems in ways of which were unaware, she says. Researchers in the late 1960 covered that humans are born with the capacity to approach challenges in four primary ways: analytically, procedurally, relationally (or collaboratively) and innovatively. At puberty, however, the brain shuts down half of that capacity, preserving only those modes of thought that have seemed most valuable during the first decade or so of life. The current emphasis on standardized testing highlights analysis and procedure, meaning that few of us inherently use our innovative and collaborative modes of thought. This breaks the major rule in the American belief system that anyone can do anything, explains M. J. Ryan, author of the 2006 book This Year I Will. and Ms. Markovas business partner. Thats a lie that we have perpetuated, and it fosters commonness. Knowing what youre good at and doing even more of it creates excellence. This is where developing new habits comes in. 习惯是一种有趣的现象。我们无意识地养成了习惯，任由大脑自动操作，且不知不觉在熟悉的常规中感到轻松舒适。“并非选择，而是习惯会控制那些没有思想的人。”19世纪时，威廉华兹华斯说。在千变万化的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。但大脑研究人员发现，当我们有意识地培养新的习惯，就创建了平行路径，甚至是全新的脑细胞，可以让我们思绪的列车跳转到新的创新轨道上来。 我们不用因为自己是受习惯影响的一成不变的生物而否定自己，相反我们可以通过有意识的培养新习惯来指导改变。事实上，我们对新事物尝试得越多，就会越远地走出自己的舒适地带，在职场及个人生活中变得越有创造性。 但是，不要白费力气试图戒除旧习惯;一旦这些惯有程序融进脑部，它们就会留在那里。相反，我们有意使之根深蒂固的新习惯会创建平行路径，它们可以绕过原来那些路径。 开放思想一书的作者达瓦纳马克瓦说：“革新所需要的第一样东西就是对好奇的着迷。然而我们被教导去做决定，就像我们的总裁称呼自己为决策者那样。”她接着说，“但是，决定意味着除了一种可能性外，其他的都被扼杀了。优秀的具有革新精神的思想家总是在探寻着许多其他的可能性。” 她说，我们都是通过一些自己没有意识到的方法解决问题的。研究人员在20世纪60年代末发现人类天生主要用四种方法应对挑战：分析法，程序法，相关法(或合作法)和创新法。但是在青春期结束，大脑关闭一半的能力，仅仅保留了那些大约在生命最开始的十几年时间里似乎是最为宝贵的思维方式。 目前标准化测试主要强调分析法和程序法这两种方式，也就是说，我们中很少有人会本能地使用创新和合作的思