各校真題外國(guó)語(yǔ)翻譯英語(yǔ)

1、外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)翻譯英語(yǔ) 2010（回憶版較全）翻譯二外考得一篇完型（10）During themany decades of this nations existence, the United Ses was a wide-open,dynamic country wiraly expanding economy. It was also a countryt tolerated a largeamount of cruelty and pain poor people livingisery, workerffering from exploiion.Over the years, Ameri

2、cans decided they wanted a little more safety and security. This is whathappens as nations grow wealthier; they use money to buy civilization.Occaally, our antors found themselves in a st spot. They could pass legislationtbrought security but without a cost to vitality. But adults knowt this situati

3、on is rare.he realworld, theres usually a trade-off. The unregulated market wants to direct capital to the productiveand the young. Welfare policies usually direct resourto the vulnerable and the elderly. Mostsol welfare legislation, even sucsful legislation, siphons money from the former to the lat

4、ter.Earlyhis health care reform pros, many of us thought we werehatal st spot.We could extend coverage to the uninsured but also improve the system overall to lower costs.t is, we thought it would besible to reduce the suffering of the vulnerable whilesimultaneously squeezing money out of the wastef

5、ul system and freeing it up for more productiveuses.ts what the management gurus call a win-win.Iof bsnt worked outt way. The bills before Congress would almost certainly ease the anxietythe uninsured, those who watch with terror as their child or spouse grows ill, who faceruptcy and ruin.And the bi

6、lls would probablyt without damaging the care the rest of us receive. In every placewhere reforms have been tried from Massachusetts to Switzerland people come to cherishtheir new benefits. The new planse politically untouchable.But, alas, there would be trade-offs. Instead of reducing costs, the bi

7、lls in Congress wouldprobably raise them. They would meant more of the nations wealth would be sd offfrom productive uses and shiftedo a still wasteful health care system.The authors of these bills have tried to foster efficiencies. The Senate bill would initiate severaleresting experiments designed

8、 to make the system more effective giving doctors incentivesto collaborate, rewarding hospitalsof these experiments will bloomt provide quality careower cost. Itssiblet someo potent systemic reforms.But the general view among independent health care economists ist these changes will notfundamentally

9、 bend the cost curve. The system after reform will look as it does today, only biggerand more expensive.As Jeffrey S. Fr, dean of the Harvard Medical School, wrote in The Wall Street Journal lastk, “In discuss with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity ofopiniont, whate

10、ver its sh, the final legislationt will emerge from Congress willmarkedly accelerate national health-care spending rathern restrain it.”Rathern pushing all of the new costs onto future generations, as pasternments havee,the Democrats have admirably agreed to raise taxes. Over the next generation, th

11、e tax increases inthe various bills could funnel trillions of dollars from the general economysystem.o the medicalMoreover, the current estimates almost certainly underse the share of the nations wealthtwill have to be shifted.hese bills, the present Congress pledgest future Congresses willime painf

12、ul measures to cut Medicare payments and ime efficiencies. Future Congressesrarely live up to these pledges. Somebody screams “Rationing!” and there is aartisan rush tokill even the most td cost-saving measure. After all, if the current Congress, with pride ofauthorship, couldnt reduce costs, why sh

13、ouldxpectt future Congresses will?The bottom line ist we face a brutal choice.Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease theanxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a woundhe sol fabric whilepiling another expensive and untouchable p

14、romise on top of the many such promises wevealready made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unfmiddle-aged, civilized and sedate one.iving nation, and a moreWe all have to decide what we wanthis moment in history, vitality or security. We can debatethis ort provi, but where we come down w

15、ill depent moral preference.t getstupefied by technical details. This debate is about values.一篇閱讀（25）Obama Loses a RoundWhile the jury is still out on whatObamas China visis achieved for the long term,close encounter with China.thehas most decidedly lost the war of symbolism in hisIn sus-conscious C

16、hina, symbolism and protocol play a rolet is largern life. U.S.diplomatic bders could reinforce Beijings mindsett blatant information control works, andt a rising China can trump universal values of open, accountableernment.During Mr. Obamas visit, the Chithe disastrous town hall meeting inoutmaneuv

17、ered the Americans in all public events, fromShanghai to the stunted press conference in Beijing. Incharacteristic manner, the Chicooperated.tried to shut out the public, while the U.S. unwittinglyThe final image ofObama in Chinat circulated around the world isling: A loneman walking up the steep sl

18、ope of the Great Wall. Thcture is in stark contrast to those of otherU.S.s who had their photographs taken at the Great Wall surrounded by flag-wavingchildren or admiring citizens. Maybe Mr. Obama wanted a quiet moment for himself beforereturning home. But asvisit to the wall is a ritualt needs to b

19、e properly framed.Mr. Obama could have waited until the next visit, when he could bring thelady and thechildren. Instead, he went ahead by himself to pay tribute to Chinas ancient culture. In return, the Chioffered nothing, no popular receptions, not even the companionship of a senior Chileader.The

20、trouble for the U.S. started at the town hall meetinn thoseanized with students for earr U.S.o days earr a more scripted events. There was no real dialogue, as aprogrammed audience, most of them Communist League Youth members, asked coachedquestions.The Chialso rejected the U.S. request for live nat

21、ional coverage and defaultea promise tolive-stream the meeting at X, the online verof Chinas se-owned news agency. Mr.Obama scored a poambassador,when he managed to address the ie ofernet freedom after the U.S.tsman, fielded him the question from a Chinetizen submitteline.Meanwhile, Chioffils garner

22、ed from the meeting generous quotes from Mr. Obamaaffirming Chinas achievements and Americas express of good will, which were turnedoglowing headlines for the Chimedia. In this round of the propaganda skirmish, the U.S.d a handful.scoree powhile China reMr. Obama was similarly shut out from addressi

23、ng the public in Beijing. At the Beijing pressconference,Hu Jao andObama read prepared sements and would nottake questions from reporters. “This was an historic meeting betjournalists should have had the opportunity to ask questions, to proben the two leaders, andthe sements,”ed Scott Mcald, theof C

24、hinas Foreign Correspondents Club, but to no avail.In a final dash to break through the information blockade, the Obama team offered an exclusiveerview to Southernkend, Chinas most feisty newspr, based in Guangzhou. Once again,journalists questions were programmed and the pr censored. In, the pr prominentlydisplayed vast white spaon theand second page of the editiont carried theerview.Propaganffils are investigating thiof defiance.Only the Obama team knows for sure how they allowed themselves to be outmaneuvered.Unwittingly, the U.S.