2023年考研英語(yǔ)閱讀真題狂背版+全文翻譯

--1-20232023年P(guān)artAText1OfallthechangesthathavetakenplaceinEnglish-languagenewspapersduringthepastquarter-century,perhapsthemostfar-reachinghasbeentheinexorabledeclineinthescopeandseriousnessoftheirartscoverage.在過(guò)去的25年英語(yǔ)報(bào)紙所發(fā)生的變化中，影響最深遠(yuǎn)的可能就是它們對(duì)藝術(shù)方面的報(bào)道在范圍上毫無(wú)疑問的縮小了，而且這些報(bào)道的嚴(yán)峻程度也確定降低了。①Itisdifficulttothepointofimpossibilityfortheaveragereaderundertheageoffortytoimagineatimewhenhigh-qualityartscriticismcouldbefoundinmostbig-citynewspapers.②Yetaconsiderablenumberofthemostsignificantcollectionsofcriticismpublishedinthe20thcenturyconsistedinlargepartofnewspaperreviews. ③Toreadsuchbookstodayistomarvelatthefactthattheirlearnedcontentswereoncedeemedsuitableforpublicationingeneral-circulationdailies.對(duì)于年齡低于40歲的一般讀者來(lái)講20收集而來(lái)?，F(xiàn)在，假設(shè)讀到這些集子，人們確定會(huì)驚詫，當(dāng)年這般淵博淺顯的內(nèi)容竟然被認(rèn)為適合發(fā)表在群眾日?qǐng)?bào)中。①WeareevenfartherremovedfromtheunfocusednewspaperreviewspublishedinEnglandbetweentheturnofthe20thcenturyandtheeveofWorldWar2,atatimewhennewsprintwasdirt-cheapandstylishartscriticismwasconsideredanornamenttothepublicationsinwhichitappeared. ②Inthosefar-offdays,itwastakenforgrantedthatthecriticsofmajorpaperswouldwriteindetailandatlengthabouttheeventstheycovered.③Theirswasaseriousbusiness.andeventhosereviewswhoworetheirlearninglightly,likeGeorgeBernardShawandErnestNewman,couldbetrustedtoknowwhattheywereabout. ④Thesemenbelievedinjournalismasacalling,andwereproudtobepublishedinthedailypress. ⑤Sofewauthorshavebrainsenoughorliterarygiftenoughtokeeptheirownendupinournalism,Newmanwrote,“thatIamtemptedtodefine“journalism“as“atermofcontemptappliedbywriterswhoarenotreadtowriterswhoare“.20越遠(yuǎn)。當(dāng)時(shí)的報(bào)紙極其廉價(jià)，人們把高雅時(shí)尚的文藝批判當(dāng)作是所登載報(bào)紙的一個(gè)亮點(diǎn)。在那些遙遠(yuǎn)的年月，各大報(bào)刊的評(píng)論家們都會(huì)不遺余力地詳盡報(bào)道他們所報(bào)道的事情，這在當(dāng)時(shí)被視為是理所固然的事情。他們的寫作是件嚴(yán)峻的事情，人們信任：甚至那些博學(xué)低調(diào)不寵愛炫耀的評(píng)論家，比方GeorgeBernardShaw和ErnestNewman也知道自己在做什么〔即他們的文章會(huì)高調(diào)消滅在報(bào)紙上。這些批判家們信任報(bào)刊評(píng)論是一項(xiàng)職業(yè)，并且對(duì)于他們的文章能夠在報(bào)紙上發(fā)表感到很驕傲“鑒于幾乎沒有作家能擁有足夠的才智或文學(xué)天賦以保證他們?cè)诼剤?bào)紙寫作中站穩(wěn)腳跟”，Newman曾寫道，“我傾向于把?聞寫作?定義為不受讀者歡送的作家用來(lái)嘲諷受讀者歡送的作家的一個(gè)?輕視之詞?”①Unfortunately,thesecriticsarevirtuallyforgotten.②NevilleCardus,whowrotefortheManchesterGuardianfrom1917untilshortlybeforehisdeathin1975,isnowknownsolelyasawriterofessaysonthegameofcricket.③Duringhislifetime,though,hewasalsooneofEngland”sforemostclassical-musiccritics,andastylistsowidelyadmiredthathisAutobiography(1947)becameabest-seller.④Hewasknightedin1967,thefirstmusiccritictobesohonored. ⑤Yetonlyoneofhisbooksisnowinprint,andhisvastbodyofwritingsonmusicisunknownsavetospecialists.不幸的是，這些批判家們現(xiàn)在實(shí)際上已被人們遺忘。從1917年開頭始終到1975年去世不久前還在為曼徹斯特《衛(wèi)報(bào)》寫文章的NevilleCardus，如今僅僅作為一個(gè)撰寫關(guān)板球競(jìng)賽文章的作家被人們所知。但是，1947年他的《自傳》一書就成為熱銷讀物。1967年他被授予爵士稱號(hào)，也是第一位獲此殊榮的音樂評(píng)論家。然而，他的書現(xiàn)在只有一本可以在市面上買到。他大量的音樂批判，除了特地爭(zhēng)論音樂評(píng)論的人以外，已鮮為人知。①IsthereanychancethatCardus”scriticismwillenjoyarevival?②Theprospectseemsremote.③Journalistictasteshadchangedlongbeforehisdeath,andpostmodernreadershavelittleusefortherichlyuphosteredVicwardianproseinwhichhespecialized.④Moreover,theamateurtraditioninmusiccriticismhasbeeninheadlongretreat.Cardus的評(píng)論有沒有時(shí)機(jī)重流行？前景似乎渺茫。在他去世之前，聞業(yè)的品嘗早已轉(zhuǎn)變很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間了，而且他所擅長(zhǎng)的措詞華美的維多利亞愛德華時(shí)期的散文風(fēng)格對(duì)后現(xiàn)代的讀者沒有什么用處。何況，由業(yè)余愛好者作音樂批判的傳統(tǒng)早已經(jīng)成為昨日黃花了。Text2Overthepastdecade,thousandsofpatentshaveseengrantedforwhatarecalledbusinessmethods.Amazonreceivedoneforits“one-click”onlinepaymentsystem.MerrillLynchgotlegalprotectionforanassetallocationstrategy.Oneinventorpatentedatechniqueforlyingabox.在過(guò)去的十年中，成千上萬(wàn)的商業(yè)方法被授予了專利權(quán)。亞馬遜網(wǎng)站獲得的專利是在線“單擊”付費(fèi)系統(tǒng)。美林公司的資產(chǎn)安排方案得到了法律保護(hù)。有個(gè)制造者的提箱技巧也獲得了專利。Curbsonbusiness-methodclaimswouldbeadramaticabout-face,becauseitwasthefederalcircuititselfthatintroducedsuchpatentswithis1998decisionintheso-calledstateStreetBankcase,approvingapatentonawayofpoolingmutual-fundassets.Thatrulingproducedanexplosioninbusiness-methodpatentfilings,initiallybyemerginginternetcompaniestryingtostakeoutexclusivepinhtstospecifictypesofonlinetransactions.Later,moveestablishedcompaniesracedtoaddsuchpatentstotheirfiles,ifonlyasadefensivemoveagainstrivalsthatmightbentthemtothepunch.In2023,IBMnotedinacourtfilingthatithadbeenissuedmorethan300business-methodpatentsdespitethefactthatitquestionedthelegalbasisforgrantingthem.Similarly,someWallStreetinvestmentfilmsarmedthemselveswithpatentsforfinancialproducts,evenastheytookpositionsincourtcasesopposingthepractice.對(duì)于商業(yè)方法訴求的限制是個(gè)戲劇性的徹底變化，由于正是聯(lián)邦巡回法院自己引進(jìn)了這種專利。那是在1998專利權(quán)。這一裁決使得商業(yè)方法專利文件以幾何數(shù)級(jí)增加，起初只是一些興的網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司對(duì)于某些特定類型的在線交易系統(tǒng)試圖爭(zhēng)取獨(dú)家專有權(quán)。后來(lái)，更多的公司競(jìng)相添加這樣的專利權(quán)，期望這樣一個(gè)防范性的行為可以先下手為強(qiáng)。2023年，IBM公司在一份法院報(bào)告中聲稱：盡管疑心這種專利授權(quán)的法律根底，但它已經(jīng)申請(qǐng)了300其各類金融產(chǎn)品申請(qǐng)專利來(lái)作為自己的維權(quán)武器。TheBilskicaseinvolvesaclaimedpatentonamethodforhedgingriskintheenergymarket. TheFederalcircuitissuedanunusualorderstatingthatthecasewouldbeheardbyall12ofthe court?sjudges,ratherthanatypicalpanelofthreeandthatoneissueitwantstoevaluateisweatheritshould“reconsider”itsstatestreetBankruling.前面提到的Bilski案例牽扯到一份已申請(qǐng)的方法專利，即關(guān)于能源市場(chǎng)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)躲避方法〔注：也可譯為“套期保值或?qū)_風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”〕。上訴法院罕見地裁定，該案件將不由三位法官聽審，而是由全部十二名法官共同進(jìn)展。另外，上訴法院還宣布，它想探討的另一件事情是是否應(yīng)當(dāng)“重審”道富銀行的裁決。TheFederalCircuit?sactioncomesinthewakeofaseriesofrecentdecisionsbythesupremeCountthathasnarrowedthescopeofprotectionsforpatentholders.LastApril,for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld “inventions”thatareobvious.ThejudgesontheFederalcircuitare“reactingtotheanti_patenttrendatthesupremecourt”,saysHaroleC.wegner,apartendattorneyandprofessorataeorgeWashingtonUniversityLawSchool.聯(lián)邦巡回法院的這一裁決效仿了最高法院。最高法院最近做出了一系列的判決，縮小了專利持有者的受保范圍。例如，去年四月，法官們認(rèn)定太多的專利授予了一些顯而易見的“制造”。喬治華盛頓大學(xué)法律學(xué)院的專利法律師HaroldC.Wegner教授表示，“聯(lián)邦巡回法院的法官們正在對(duì)最高法院的反專利動(dòng)態(tài)做出反響”Text3①InhisbookTheTippingPoint,MalcolmAladuellarguesthat“socialepidemics”aredriveninlargepartbytheactionsofatinyminorityofspecialindividuals,oftencalledinfluentials,whoareunusuallyinformed,persuasive,orwellconnected.②Theideaisintuitivelycompelling,butitdoesn?texplainhowideasactuallyspread.在《引爆流行》這本書中，作者M(jìn)alcolmGladwell認(rèn)為社會(huì)流行潮流在很大程度上是由一小局部特別個(gè)體的行為引起的，這些人就是人們常說(shuō)的影響者。他們異乎尋常的博聞多識(shí)，能言善辯，人脈廣泛。從直覺上講，MalcolmGladwell的理論似乎很有說(shuō)服力，但是它沒有解釋流行觀念的實(shí)際傳播過(guò)程。①Thesupposedimportanceofinfluentialsderivesfromaplausible-soundingbutlargelyuntestedtheorycalledthe“two-stepflowofcommunication”:Informationflowsfromthemediatotheinfluentialsandfromthemtoeveryoneelse. ②Marketershaveembracedthetwo-stepflowbecauseitsuggeststhatiftheycanjustfindandinfluencetheinfluentials,thoseselectpeoplewilldomostoftheworkforthem. ③Thetheoryalsoseemstoexplainthesuddenandunexpectedpopularityofcertainlooks,brands,orneighborhoods.④Inmanysuchcases,acursorysearchforcausesfindsthatsomesmallgroupofpeoplewaswearing,promoting,ordevelopingwhateveritisbeforeanyoneelsepaidattention.⑤Anecdotalevidenceofthiskindfitsnicelywiththeideathatonlycertainspecialpeoplecandrivetrends.人們之所以認(rèn)為影響者很重要，是由于受到了“兩級(jí)傳播”理論的影響，即信息先從媒體流向影響者，然后再?gòu)挠绊懻吡飨蚱渌恕＿@一理論看似合理，但未閱歷證。營(yíng)銷人員承受兩級(jí)傳播理論是由于該理論認(rèn)為，如果他們能夠找到影響者，并對(duì)他們施加影響，這些精英們就會(huì)替他們完成大局部的營(yíng)銷傳播工作。這一理論似乎還可以解釋某些裝扮、品牌或社區(qū)為何會(huì)突然受到出乎意料的追捧。對(duì)于很多諸如此類的狀況，假設(shè)只是走馬觀花地查找緣由，你會(huì)覺察總是有一小群人開風(fēng)氣之先，領(lǐng)先穿上、宣傳和開發(fā)人們此前從未留意的東西。這種事實(shí)證據(jù)與該觀點(diǎn)正好一拍即合——只有一些特別的人才能引領(lǐng)潮流。①Intheirrecentwork,however,someresearchershavecomeupwiththefindingthatinfluentialshavefarlessimpactonsocialepidemicsthanisgenerallysupposed.②Infact,theydon?tseemtoberequiredofall.③Theresearchers?argumentstemsfromasimpleobservationaboutsocialinfluence,withtheexceptionofafewcelebritieslikeOprahWinfrey—whoseoutsizepresenceisprimarilyafunctionofmedia,notinterpersonal,influence—eventhemostinfluentialmembersofapopulationsimplydon?tinteractwiththatmanyothers.④Yetitispreciselythesenoncelebrityinfluentialswho,accordingtothetwo-step-flowtheory,aresupposedtodrivesocialepidemicsbyinfluencingtheirfriendsandcolleaguesdirectly.⑤Forasocialepidemictooccur,however,eachpersonsoaffected,musttheninfluencehisorherownacquaintances,whomustinturninfluencetheirs,andsoon;⑥andjusthowmanyotherspayattentiontoeachofthesepeoplehaslittletodowiththeinitialinfluential.⑦Ifpeopleinthenetworkjusttwodegreesremovedfromtheinitialinfluentialproveresistant,forexample,thecascadeofchangewon?tpropagateveryfaroraffectmanypeople.但是，在最近的爭(zhēng)論中，一些爭(zhēng)論人員覺察，影響者對(duì)社會(huì)流行潮流的影響力遠(yuǎn)比人們認(rèn)為的要小。事實(shí)上，他們似乎根本就是無(wú)關(guān)緊要。爭(zhēng)論者的觀點(diǎn)源于對(duì)社會(huì)影響力的簡(jiǎn)潔觀看：除了少數(shù)像OprahWinfrey這〔影響力的人也無(wú)法與那么多的“其他人”互動(dòng)，從而引領(lǐng)潮流。然而，依據(jù)兩級(jí)傳播理論，正是這些非名人影響者直接影響了他們的朋友和同事，從而推動(dòng)了社會(huì)流行潮流。但是，要讓一種社會(huì)流行潮流真正發(fā)生，每個(gè)受影響的人還必需影響他的熟人，而他的熟人又必需影響其他熟人，依此類推；但是會(huì)有多少人去關(guān)注這些熟人中的每個(gè)人，與最初的影響者幾乎沒有關(guān)系。舉個(gè)例子來(lái)說(shuō)，在這個(gè)人際影響的網(wǎng)絡(luò)中，假設(shè)第一個(gè)影響者受到兩次抵抗，那么他的連鎖影響范圍就不會(huì)連續(xù)擴(kuò)大，或者說(shuō)影響的人不會(huì)很多。①Buildingonthebasictruthaboutinterpersonalinfluence,theresearchersstudiedthedynamicsofsocialcontagionbyconductingthousandsofcomputersimulationsofpopulations,manipulatinganumberofvariablesrelatingtopeople?sabilitytoinfluenceothersandtheirtendencytobeinfluenced.基于這一人際影響力的根本領(lǐng)實(shí)，爭(zhēng)論者們爭(zhēng)論了社會(huì)影響的動(dòng)力機(jī)制。我們對(duì)不同人群進(jìn)展了成千上萬(wàn)“全球連鎖反響”——影響力通過(guò)〔人際〕網(wǎng)絡(luò)進(jìn)展廣泛傳播——發(fā)生的主要前提，并不取決于是否存在著那么幾個(gè)影響者，而主要取決于易受影響的人們是否到達(dá)了臨界數(shù)量。Text4①Bankershavebeenblamingthemselvesfortheirtroublesinpublic. ②Behindthescenes,theyhavebeentakingaimatsomeoneelse:theaccountingstandard-setters. Theirrules,moanthebanks,haveforcedthemtoreportenormouslosses,andit”sjustnotfair.④Theserulessaytheymustvaluesomeassetsatthepriceathirdpartywouldpay,notthepricemanagersandregulatorswouldlikethemtofetch.臺(tái)面上，銀行家們將他們的麻煩歸咎于己身，臺(tái)面下，他們始終把目標(biāo)對(duì)準(zhǔn)他人：會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則制定者。銀行業(yè)埋怨會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)章迫使他們報(bào)告巨大損失，認(rèn)為這不公正。規(guī)章規(guī)定他們必需以第三方付出價(jià)格來(lái)評(píng)估局部資產(chǎn)的價(jià)值，而非依據(jù)治理者和監(jiān)管者期望該資產(chǎn)能夠獲得的價(jià)格。①Unfortunately,banks”lobbyingnowseemstobeworking.②Thedetailsmaybeunknowable,buttheindependenceofstandard-setters,essentialtotheproperfunctioningofcapitalmarkets,isbeingcompromised.③And,unlessbankscarrytoxicassetsatpricesthatattractbuyers,revivingthebankingsystemwillbedifficult.——這正是資產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)正常運(yùn)行的關(guān)鍵——已經(jīng)做出妥協(xié)了。銀行假設(shè)不以能夠吸引買家的價(jià)格計(jì)量有毒資產(chǎn)，銀行系統(tǒng)的復(fù)蘇將會(huì)格外困難。①EuropeanministersinstantlydemandedthattheInternationalAccountingStandardsBoard(IASB)dolikewise.②TheIASBsaysitdoesnotwanttoactwithoutoverallplanning,butthepressuretofoldwhenitcompletesitreconstructionofruleslaterthisyearisstrong.③CharlieMcCreevy,aEuropeancommissioner,warnedtheIASBthatitdid“notliveinapoliticalvacuum“but“intherealword“andthatEuropecouldyetdevelopdifferentrules.美國(guó)FASB〔財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)〕在與國(guó)會(huì)猛烈摩擦之后，匆忙通過(guò)了規(guī)章的修改。這些修改使得銀行在使用模型評(píng)估非流淌資產(chǎn)方面用有更大的自由FASB主席BobHerz大聲反對(duì)那些“疑心我們的動(dòng)機(jī)”的人們。然而銀行股票上漲了，這些修改強(qiáng)化了“治理層使用理性推斷”的說(shuō)法，這種說(shuō)法是一個(gè)游說(shuō)團(tuán)的客氣之言。歐洲的部長(zhǎng)們馬上要求國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)(IASB)也這么做。IASB表示它不想沒有完整打算就冒然行動(dòng)，但它在今年下半年完成規(guī)章修訂時(shí)必需屈服的壓力格外CharlieMcCreevy警告IASB“處在政治真空中”而是“在現(xiàn)實(shí)世界里”，并表示歐洲可能最終會(huì)進(jìn)展出不同的會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)章。①Itwasbanksthatwereonthewrongplanet,withaccountsthatvastlyovervaluedasse