北外基础英语，同声传译试卷（历年题，转发）自己动手下载！98-04年的！免费！

1998年基础英语试卷Read the following passage:
ARCHIBALD MACLEISH: Bicentennial of What?
An address at the Bicentennial commemoration of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia
It is a common human practice to answer questions without truly asking them and the American bicentennial is merely the latest instance. Everyone knows what the Bicentennial celebrates: the 200th anniversary of the adoption, by the Continental Congress, of the Declaration of Independence. But no one asks what the Bicentennial is because no one asks what the Declaration was. The instrument of announcing American independence from Great Britain? Clearly that: but is that all it was? Is it only American independence from Great Britain we are celebrating on July 4, 1976——only the instrument which declared our independence? There have been other declarations of unilateral independence from Great Britain which no one is likely to remember for 200 years, much less to celebrate.
“All men” are said in that document to be created equal and to have been endowed with certain unalienable rights. All governments are alleged to have been instituted among men to secure those rights —— to protect them. Are these, then, American rights? Doubtless——but only American? Is it the British Government which is declared to have violated them? Unquestionably——but the British Government alone? And the revolution against tyranny and arrogance which is here implied ——is it a revolution which American independence from the mediocre majesty of George III will win or is there something more intended? —— something for all mankind? ——for all the world?
In the old days when college undergraduates still read history, any undergraduate could have told you that these are not rhetorical questions: that they were, from the beginning, two opinions about the Declaration and that they were held by (among others) the two great men who had most to do with its composition and its adoption by the Congress.
John Adams, who supported the Declaration with all his formidable powers, inclined to the view that it was just what is called itself: a declaration of American independence. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote it, held the opposite opinion: it was a revolutionary proclamation applicable to all mankind.
“May it be the world”, he wrote to the citizens of Washington a few days before he died, “what I believe it will be: to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all, the signal of arousing men to burst the chains…”
And he went on in reverberating words: “The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs for a favored few, booted and spurred, ready to ride them by the grace of God.”
Moreover, these two great and famous men were not the only Presidents of the Republic to choose between the alternatives: A third, as great as either, speaking in Philadelphia at the darkest moment in our history —— bearing indeed the whole weight of that history on his shoulders as he spoke —— turned to the Declaration for guidance for himself and for his country and made his choice between the meanings.
Mr. Lincoln had been making his way slowly eastward in February 1861 from Springfield to Washington to take the oath of office as President of a divided people on the verge of Civil War. He had reached Philadelphia on the 21st of February where he had been told of the conspiracy to murder him in Baltimore as he passed through that city. He had gone to Independence Hall before daylight on the 22nd. He had found a crowd waiting. He had spoken to them.
He had often asked himself. Mr. Lincoln said, what great principle or idea it was which had held the Union so long together. “It was not,” he said, as though replying directly to John Adams, “the mere matter of the separation from the mother country.”
It was something more. “Something in the Declaration,” they heard him say. “Something giving liberty not alone to the people of this country but hope to the world.” “It was that which gave promise that in due time the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men.”
Anyone else, any modern President certainly, would have said, as most of them regularly do, that his hope for the country was fixed in huge expenditures for arms, in the possession of overwhelming power. Not Mr. Lincoln. Not Mr. Lincoln even at that desperate moment. His hope was fixed in a great affirmation of belief made almost a century before. It was fixed in the commitment of the American people, at the beginning of their history as a people, to “ a great principle or idea”: the principle or idea of human liberty —— of human liberty not for themselves alone but for mankind.
It was a daring gamble of Mr. Lincoln’s —— but so too was Mr. Jefferson’s Declaration —— so was the cause which Mr. Jefferson’s Declaration had defined. Could a nation be founded on the belief in liberty? Could belief in liberty preserve it? Two American generations argued that issue but not ours —— not the generation of the celebrants of the 200th anniversary of that great event. We assume, I suppose, that Mr. Jefferson’s policy was right for him and right for Mr. Lincoln, because it was successful. But whatever we think about Mr. Lincoln’ view of the Declaration, whatever we believe about the Declaration in the past, in other men’s lives, in other men’s wars, we do not ask ourselves, as we celebrate its Bicentennial, what it is today, what it is to us.
Our present President has never intimated by so much as a word that such a question might be relevant —— that it even exists. The Congress has not debated it. The state and Federal commissions charged with Bicentennial responsibility express no opinions. Only the generation of the young, so far as I am informed, has even mentioned it, and the present generation of the young has certain understanble prejudices, inherited from the disillusionments of recent years, which color their comments…
Express your view that the nation brought into being by hat great document was, and had no choice but be, a revolutionary nation, and you will be reminded that, but for the accidental discovery of a piece of tape on a door latch, the President of the United States in the Bicentennial year would have been Richard Nixon. And so it will go until you are told at last that the American Revolution is a figure of obsolescent speech; that the Declaration has become a museum exhibit in the National Archives; and that, as for the Bicentennial, it is a year-long commercial which ought to be turned off.
Well, the indignation of the young is always admirable regardless of its verbal excesses —— far more admirable, certainly, than the indifference of the elders. But, unfortunately, it is the indifference of the elders we have to consider. And not only because it is a puzzling, a paradoxical, indifference but because it is as disturbing as it is paradoxical.
Does our indifference to the explicitly revolutionary purpose of the Declaration － our silence about Mr. Jefferson’s interpretation of that purpose —— mean that we no longer believe in that purpose —— no longer believe in human liberty? Hardly?...
But if this is so, if we still believe in the cause of human liberty, why do we celebrate the anniversary of the document which defined it for us without a thought for the meaning of the definition, then or now? Why have we not heard from our representatives and our officials on his great theme?
Is it because, although the Republic continues to believe in human liberty for itself, it no longer hopes for it in the world? Because it no longer thinks such a hope “realistic”?...
So far, indeed, is Mr. Jefferson’s revolution from being obsolete that it is now the only truly revolutionary force in the age we live in. And not despite the police states but because of them.
In 1945, when e had driven the Nazis out of Europe and the Japanese out of the Pacific in the name of human freedom and human decency, we stood at the peak, not only of our power as a nation but of our greatness as a people. We were more nearly ourselves, our true selves as the inheritors of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, than we had ever been before. And yet within a few years of that tremendous triumph, of the unexampled generosity of our nuclear offer to the world, of the magnificence of the marshall Plan, we were lost in the hysterical fears and ignoble deceits of Joe McCarthy and his followers and had adopted, as our foreign policy, the notion that if we “contained” the Russian initiative, we would some how or other be better off ourselves than if we pursued our historic purpose as Jefferson conceived it.
The result, as we now know, was disaster. And not only in Southeast Asia and Portugal and Africa but throughout the world, Containment put us in bed with every anti-Communist we could find including some of the most offensive despots then in business. It produced flagrantly subversive and shameful plots by American agencies against the duly elected governments of other countries. And it ended by persuading the new countries of the postwar world, the emerging nations, that he United States was to them and to their hopes what the Holy Alliance had been to us and ours 200 years before.
I. Explain the following in your own words:
1. All governments are alleged to have been instituted among men to secure those rights － to protect them.     2. In the old days when college undergraduates still read history…  (1) What is the implication of this statement?   (2) How do you know?                    3. … who had most to do with its composition and its adoption by the Congress.          4. May it be to the world, what I believe it will be: to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all, the signal of arousing men to burst the chains…                   5. The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles… by the grace of God.          6. It was that which gave promise… from the shoulders of all men.            7. It was a daring gamble… which Mr. Jefferson’s Declaration had defined.   (1) What does “daring gamble” refer to?   (2) What was the cause the Declaration had defined?           8. Our present president … that it even exists.                9. … you will be reminded… would have been Richard Nixon.             10. … regardless of its verbal excesses                 11. So far is Mr. Jefferson’s revolution from being obsolete… but because of them.          12. And it ended by persuading… to us and ours 200 years before.
II. What is the message the speaker wants to put across?   III. Translate the following passage into English:
“主人翁意识”，在我看来，也就是“所有者的意识”。“主人翁意识”当然也是社会意识，而且，任何一种社会意识，都是由社会存在所决定。那么，产生此种“社会意识”的社会存在是什么呢？
譬如说吧，在一个拥有1200万元资产和1200名职工的企业里，加入这是一家由职工等额持股的股份合作制企业，那就意味着每个职工都是拥有万元资产的主人翁。每个职工的“主人翁意识”也就由此而产生。山东诸城市委书记陈光曾提到过这样一组数据:某次对一国有企业的300名职工以“如果看见有人偷企业的财产你会怎么办”为题，进行了一次问卷调查。回答“装作看不见”的220人，回答“他偷我也偷”的67人，回答“与他作斗争”的13人。这是诸城改制前对国有企业“主人翁意识”的一次定量调查结果。
邓小平南巡之后，在市场经济问题上，姓“社”姓“资”的非议，是逐步销声匿迹了，然而，“左家庄”的炊烟不散。这些人很重要的一个理由——只有坚持国家所有制，职工才能产生“主人翁意识”。一副悲天悯人、为民请命的“革命动机”。而在传统体制中，企业自身的自主权都无从保证，还论什么职工的“主人翁意识”？

I.       将下列短文译成英语（35％）
有一次，有拥护的车厢门口，我听见一位男乘客客客气气地问他前面的一个女乘客:“您下车吗？”女乘客没理他。“你下车吗？”他又问了一遍，女乘客还是没理他。“下车吗？”他耐不住了，放大声问，那女乘客依然没有反映。“你是聋子，还是哑巴？”他急了，捅了一下那女乘客，也引得车厢里的人都往这里看。女乘客这时也急了，瞪起一双眼睛回手给男乘客一拳。
见此情景，我猛然想起在60路沿线上有家福利工厂，女乘客可能就是个聋哑人听不见声音。我赶忙向男乘客解释，又用纸条写了一句话，举到女乘客眼前:“对不起！他要下车，他问了您好几声，您是不是没听见？”女乘客点了点头，把道让开了。
从此以后，我就特别注意聋哑人的特征，还从他那里学会了一些常用的手语。比如，我可以用哑语问他们:“朋友，您好！”“您到哪里下车？”“您请往里走！”
“谢谢”等等。这样，不仅我能更好地为他们服务，与他们进行感情交流，也减少了一些他们与其他乘客的误会和纠纷。
II.将下列单句译成英语（15％）
1.目前我们国内正在进行改革。我是主张改革的，不改革就没有出路，旧的那一套经过几十年的时间证明是不成功的。
2.中国反对霸权主义，自己也永远不称霸。
3.我们搞社会主义才几十年，还处在初级阶段。巩固和发展社会主义制度，还需要一个很长的历史阶段，需要我们几代人、十几代人，甚至几十代人坚持不懈地努力奋斗。
III. 将下列短文译成汉语（35％）
   India has always had ride: Now it has ambition. In the early years of independence Nehru’s government rejoiced in standing apart, the epitome of the “nonaligned” nation. As a conglomeration of peoples with seven major religions and 18 official languages, India had its own rules ——  a democracy in a continent ruled by despots, a planned economy whose bureaucratic stewards were satisfied to creep along at a 3 or 4 percent “Hindu rate of growth.” Only when the New Delhi elite squarely acknowledged that its hubris had put the nation on the sidelines of the global economy —— while India’s great rival China was getting rich —— did real reforms begin. Six years into India’s opening to the world, the economy is growing by nearly 7 percent a year —— a rate that by the year 2020 will transform India into the world’s fourth largest economy (after China, the United States and Japan). “There is a lot of political cacophony,” says Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, who has served under two coalition governments in the last 14 months. “But we are on course.”                    ……
The Indian mind-set is without question changing in revolutionary ways. Not so long ago, the nation of 950 million people, growing by 18 million a year, worried mainly about feeding itself. But in today’s newly competitive India, bureaucrats and industrialists ponder the advantages of a lowcost labor pool that is growing younger while the work force of the developed world is again. Perhaps India’s greatest strength of the 21st century will lie in its ability to employ hundreds of millions of people in labor-intensive industries ranging from food processing to textiles.
IV. 将下列单句译成汉语（15%）
1.  Two thirds of Pakistan’s 130 million people are illiterate, as are half of India’s 929 million. While this is a big improvement compared with the less than 15% literacy rate when India became independent, it is well behind most of Asia.
2.  Both India and Pakistan spend less as a percentage of GDP on health than do most other developing countries.
3.  Rarely has the United States been at loss for words or actions when an international situation affects its interests. But Washington’s muted response to the currency crisis sweeping Southeast Asia is sowing suspicion among its allies in the region and fuelling anti-American sentiment.

Part One
Read the following and be prepared to answer questions:              Hewlett-Packard Co. is a primary engine of the Information Age economy. In 1997, it sold $43 billion worth of desktop computers, printers and other products on the global market, and the company reached a value of almost $70 billion on Wall Street. That year, Hewlett-Packard paid $25 million in compensation to its chairman, president and chief executive officer, Lewis H. Platt, and his three deputies. Hewlett-Packard also compensates the men and the women who clean the offices of Platt, his deputies and every-one else. The company does not actually hire janitors; rather, it hires companies that hire janitors. Every year, Hewlett-Packard contracts with a variety of temporary-employment agencies for the services of hundreds of broom-pushers and mop-wielders. These temporary employees are paid between $6.20 and 9.93 per hour, or roughly $15,000 a year.
   The disparity illustrates the slightly dirty little secret of the world’s most dazzling industry. As the Information Age economy booms, the gap between the nation’s poorest and richest workers is widening-and this gap is occurring not in spite of the Information Age, but in part because of it.
   A survey of economists by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York attributed a stunning 45 per cent of the widening wage gap nationwide to technology, with the remainder split between the erosion of the minimum wage (10 per cent), international trade (12 per cent), the decline in unionization (10 per cent), immigration (8 per cent) and other (15 per cent).
   Adjusted for inflation, the incomes of the poorest fifth of working families dropped by 21 per cent between 1979 and 1995, while the incomes of the richest fifth jumped by 30 per cent during the same time period. This gap has been growing in good times as well as bad , although indications are that it’s been leveling off in recent months. According to the 1997 Economic Report of the President, the wage gap “continued to widen through the 1980s and into the early 1990s, regardless of economic conditions.”
   That the new economy may depend upon, and even promote, the worst aspects of the old economy is a growing worry. Technology’s impact on wages has become a top concern of the White House’s National Economic Council, said a White House official. “There is a potentially polarizing impact of technology, and without some special national efforts, people are right to be concerned about this issue.”
   Even President Clinton has raised it. “History teaches us that even as new technologies create growth and new opportunities, they can heighten economic inequalities and sharpen social divisions.” Clinton declared in a June 5 speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “We know from hard experience that unequal education hardens into unequal prospects, [and] the Information Age will accelerate this trend.”
   In Silicon Valley-the fountainhead of the Information Age economy-each of the top 100 executives receives as much pay as 220 production workers combined. That’s a sharp jump from 1991, when each of the top 100 executives was paid as much as 42 average workers. These figures come from a study titled “Growing Together or Drifting Apart?” that was put together by two left-leaning groups, Working Partnerships USA, in San Jose, and the Economic Policy Institute, in Washington. The study also reported that the poorest one-quarter of the Valley’s workers earned less than $9.11 per hour in 1996, a drop from $9.96 (adjusted for inflation) earned in 1991.
   Granted, statistics are slippery things. Overestimates of inflation in recent decades have obscured wage growth for everyone, and workers earn enough now, in fewer working hours than in 1975, to buy better goods —— cars with air-conditioning, computers with worldwide communications capabilities, disease-fighting drugs, larger houses and overseas vacations.                     Depending on what is being measured and when, wage estimates can vary by 40 per cent, cautions Robert I. Lerman, an economist at the Urban Institute in Washington. Lerman’s studies show that the overall wage gap has remained static since the mid-1980s largely because growth in wages paid to women and racial minorities has balanced out significant technology-driven declines in wages paid to less-skilled men. But, he adds, the high-tech products “are a force for widening gaps…Because they are part of the rising demand for skill.”
WHY TECHNOLOGY’S CULPRIT
Edward R. Wolff, an economics professor at New York University, points to office computers as the largest driver of inequality. Drawing on census data, he concludes that the wage gap grows by 10 per cent for every doubling of per-worker investment in office computers. For example, in an economy where the top 5 per cent of workers won 20 per cent of all income, a doubling of computer investment would boost their share by a tenth —— to 22 per cent of all income —— while shrinking all other workers’ income to 78 per cent. This occurs, he says, because office computers transfer work from some employees —— such as insurance adjusters, telephone support workers and nurses —— to a smaller corps of high-tech experts who can design software capable of mimicking those skills.
Although the recent rise in the stock market —— due in large part to phenomenal growth of high-tech stocks —— will provide additional wealth for the 43 per cent of families who own  stocks, it won’t do much to reduce income inequality, Wolff says. The market doesn’t work that way: 83 per cent of all stock is owned b the richest 10 per cent of families.
   Other economists say the wage gap exists because the new technology creates greater rewards for the skilled workers who can use it. Thus, technological advances widen inequalities not only between different groups of workers, but within the ranks of those groups, says Philip Cook, professor of public policy at Duke University (Durham, N.C.) and co-author of The Winner-Take-all Society. For example, Cook says, laptop computers and cellular phones allow the best salespeople in a company to spend more time selling, thus snatching sales away from the almost-as-good salespeople.
Gary T. Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, argues that technology is only one element of a reinvigorated marketplace, in which Wall Street, shareholders and customers pressure top managers to cut costs and increase efficiency by whatever means possible, including greater use of technology or cheap overseas labor. This pressure “helped remove underperforming managers, [and] the managers who remain are not masters of their domain, but are slaves of the marketplace,” Burtless says.
Burtless’ analysis matches evidence collected by Chris C. Benner, a research associate at Working Partnerships and an author of the “Growing Apart” report. “What technology has done is break down the boundaries between firms,” Benner argues, and “there is really nothing on the workers’ side to help collective bargaining across multiple firms.”
   The janitors at Hewlett-Packard are one example of companies’ ability to use technology —— to cut costs. Generally, companies can use computer technology to carefully track their spending and operations and to identify less-important ancillary work, such as janitorial services and parts production, or inefficient elements, such as slow production workers.
   Firms used to hire workers who would clean their factories and offices under direct supervision of in-house managers. But this is not cost-effective. Now, more and more companies hire out much of their custodial work to leaning contractors. The companies save money because the contractors usually pay their workers much less than in-house janitors would be paid. And the contractors also assume the burden of supervising the janitors’ work —— supervision that the employing company can oversee through computer-aided reports.
   From the company’s point of view, this all makes obvious sense. “a lot of technology companies really have been turning more and more to their core competencies, the things we do really well,” said Anne McGrath, a spokeswoman for Hewlett-Packard.
   As Hewlett-Packard sees it, there is nothing to be gained by investing in the long-term prospects of such obviously unskilled workers as janitors. Instead, says McGrath, the company will “hire whatever we think is the best company to clean our buildings, based on their quality and the price and their track record.” The benefits of this approach go beyond cost saving. Right now, 150 janitors are striking the company that cleans Hewlett-Packard’s plant in Roseville, Calif. It’s a potentially nasty little labor dispute, but it’s not Hewlett-Packard’s dispute. Says McGrath, “Our attitude is that this really isn’t our issue.”
A DARWINIAN APPROACH
   Silicon Valley companies are particularly reliant on “out-sourcing” because consumer demand for their products changes very quickly. Any companies —— especially the new or small ones —— can’t risk building their own expensive manufacturing plants or retaining skilled workers, for fear that they will stand idle for long periods. As Benner explains, that has created a class of on-demand manufacturers and workers who migrate within the Valley from one product to another from one factory to another, as each technology season comes and goes, thus pushing down prices and wages.
   It is difficult to measure precisely how much work the high-tech industry has contracted out, says Benner. But the amount is clearly large. Benner notes that the biggest high-tech companies in the Valley have one-seventh as many employees as the Big Three automakers, even though their stock market values are comparable. The result, says Paul Saffo, a director at the California-based Institute for the Future, is “a [technology] revolution being pushed by and ever-smaller number of people.”
   The same trends have spun off low-paid jobs nationwide, argues Michael E. McGrath (no relation), president of Local 7026 of the Communications Workers of America. McGrath is trying, with limited success, to organize the roughly 18,000 telemarketing workers in Tucson, salespeople who call customers nationwide over cheap long-distance phone lines. Many large companies have cut their overhead by replacing their own telemarketing staff with workers hired by telemarketing companies, including the 35 companies based in Tucson. However, union organizer McGrath can’t get much traction, partly because the market conditions bounce the workers from one job to the next, keeping their wages at under $7 an hour.
   That raises a somewhat delicate political point. The high-tech industry likes to think of itself as progressive and, as a whole, leans toward liberal and Democratic politics. So, how does it deal with the fact that it contributes to labor inequalities? It doesn’t, except to pass the buck to the market.
  Explain the underlined parts in your own words, trying to bring out the implied meaning, if there is any: (40%)                               1.  The disparity illustrates ……dazzling industry                2.  this gap is occurring …… because of it                  3.  This gap has been growing …… in recent months               4.  That the new economy …… is a growing worry (What are the worst aspects? What is meant by old economy?)                           5.  there is a potentially …… about this issue                 6.  We know from hard experience ……                   7.  Granted, statistics are slippery things                    8.  companies can use computers …… less important ancillary work           9.  the benefits …… beyond cost saving                   10.  Silicon Valley companies are particularly reliant on “out-sourcing”. What is meant by “out-sourcing”? Please explain.
II.      Please answer the following questions: (20%)
1.  According to the author, how does high technology widen the wage gap?        2.  A. From the company’s point of view, this all makes obvious sense: “A lot f technology companies really have been turning more and more to their core competencies, the thing, we do really well”……(Para.6 from bottom)(6%)                           a.   Why does the company think it makes sense? In what way it makes sense?        b.  What is meant by “turning more and more to their core competencies”?           B. It doesn’t, except to pass the buck to the market place. (last sentence of the piece.)(4%)      Why doesn’t it deal with this fact?                     How can it avoid dealing with it?
Part Two
Translate the following passage into English: (40%)
老爸的声音                           起风的周末，外出采访完独自回校，满身疲惫。在街头电话亭，我拨通那个熟悉的号码，响了很久，才传来一低哑的声音，是老爸。他很快惊喜起来:“北京冷布冷，这段日子过得怎么样......” 我握着听筒， 不知该说些什么，只是想听听他的声音。
两年前的这个时候，年过半百的老爸主动申请去南方工作，和约三年。虽然那里没有鱼钓，没有充足的午休，找不到家的感觉，但是为了念大学的我和妹妹，为了我们那些日益昂贵的学费和生活费，他很坚决地去了。于是，电话成了维系我们和老爸的桥梁。记忆中他从未问过我毕业后的志向，只是认真地看着我带回家的一篇篇发表的文章、一张张获奖的证书。只有一次，他喝很多酒，家里停电。在烛光下，他突然对埋头写稿的我说:“理想固然好，但如果你没有谋生的一技之长，怎么在社会上立足？”这句话让我整整思索了一个晚上。
大学快毕业时，我告诉南方的老爸，我想离开家继续读书。他说:“只要你考上，我就供。”当我给他念录取通知书时，电话那头的声音很坚定，“明天，我就把学费给你寄去。” 于是，我带着理想坐进了北京的另一所课堂。父亲在经济最发达的南方，却没有告诉我赚钱和理想哪个更重要，更没有说记者的种种艰辛。只在22年来第一次写给我的信种说:“你要好好写文章，勿急于发表，多问多想，写出有分量的东西来，需要什么书，只管买，这点钱我还能供得起。一个人在外多注意身体，饭要吃好。”信里还附了他从报刊上剪下的人生哲言。我哭了，久久地。我第一次如此近地听到他心灵深处的声音，一直以来被我忽略了的声音。
我站在北京，父亲的声音来自遥远的南方，他在我耳边久久回荡。

1.将下列短文译成英语（35％）
今年6月克林顿访华带了一支庞大的新闻队伍，使美国的民众第一次有了一个比较客观地了解中国发展变化情况的机会，用新华社的话来说，克林顿访华的报道，才“使‘新中国’的形象首次深入到美国的千家万户”。至于美国的政治家和新闻媒体则对所接触到的中国情况大感“意外”。以上的例子说明，西方世界对中国的认识与中国的实际情况相差有多远。究其原因，主要是西方有些人习惯于用政治化，意识形态化的眼光看待人权问题，习惯把一种社会制度看成是人权的化身，而把其他社会制度和发展模式看成是侵犯人权的不表现，因此，总是把共产党领导的中国想象成一个反人权的国家。这种思维方式，使他们无法正确认识中国人权的真是情况，看不到中国的积极变化和发展，甚至把中国促进人权的努力都误认为是侵犯人权的表现。和平，发展与人权是世界各国的共同要求，更是一个多世纪以来中国人民矢志不渝的奋斗目标。中国当前正致力于建设富强民主文明的国家，这是一项使五分之一人类彻底摆脱贫困，充分实现人权的跨世纪的伟大事业，也是世界和平发展和人权事业的重要组成部分。开放的中国需要吸收人类一切优秀文化成果和有益经验，也需要得到各国的最大理解和支持。
II. 将下列单句译成英语（15％）
1. 国家对经济的管理，已经由指令性计划为主的直接控制，转变为主要运用经济和法律手段的间接调控。
2. 1995年的经济体制改革，使重点推进国有企业改革，并配套进行社会保障制度改革，进一步转变政府职能，培育市场体系。
3. 不顾本国的实际照搬其它国家的具体模式，或以自己的模式为尺度衡量和评判其它国家，都不是一种求实和相互尊重的态度，不利于国家之间的相互借鉴和共同发展。
III. 将系列短文译成汉语（35%）
I like to think that my own relationship with President Reagan and the efforts I made to try to establish common ground between the United States and the Europeans helped to prevent disagreements over the pipeline and other trading issues from poisoning western co-operation at this critical juncture. Certainly, the summer of 1982 saw some useful international diplomacy. Between 4 and 6 June the heads of government of the G7 countries met amid the splendid opulence of Versailles. …
President Mitterrand, who chaired the summit, had prepared a paper on the impact of new technology on employment. It quite often happened that the country in the chair at summit meetings felt that they must introduce some new initiatives even at the cost of extra government intervention and increased bureaucracy. This was no exception. For my part, I had no doubt about the attitude to take to technological innovation: it must be welcomed not resisted. There might be “new” technology but technological progress itself was nothing new, and over the years it had not destroyed jobs but created them. Our task was not to make grand plans for technological innovation but rather to see how public opinion could be influenced in order to embrace not recoil from it. Fortunately, therefore, President Mitterrand’s paper was kicked into touch in the form of a working group.
……But my most vivid recollection of the proceedings at Versailles is of the impression made by President Reagan. At one point he spoke for twenty minutes or so without notes, outlining his economic vision. His quite but powerful words provided those who did not yet know him with some insight into the qualities which made him such a remarkable political leader. After he had finished, President Mitterrand acknowledged that no one would criticize President Reagan for being true to his beliefs. Given President Mitterrand’s socialist policies, that was almost a compliment.
IV. 将下列单句译成英语（15％）
1.  No serious student of history can doubt that the emergence of China as a world power presents a serious challenge to American foreign policy.
2.  Officials in many signatory states had disputed the complicated provisions of the treaty; some national legislatures —— notably the US Senate —— refused to ratify the treaty on the ground that it was too kind to developing countries by not requiring their compliance. Moreover, critics said that by not sufficiently emphasizing deadlines for implementation, the Kyoto treaty let even the rich nations off the hook.
3.  Success against inflation was the single achievement to which we drew most attention as we approached the election, not least because Labor looked set to promise huge increases in spending and borrowing which could never be honestly financed and which would have sent prices soaring again.

I.    Reading Comprehension. (32 points)
1.  Read the following article and paraphrase the underlined parts:
The twenty-first century will mark the era of tertiary and lifelong learning for everybody－or almost everybody. Thus the West Report from Australia, echoing a key theme of the immediately preceding Dearing Report in the UK1. (National Committee f Inquiry into Higher Education [NCIHE],1997).
The notion of lifelong learning has pervaded higher education around the world as governments have increasingly come to recognize a link between their education systems and national economic performance. However, policy relating to the actual making of the link needs deeper consideration. The development of “key skills” has been seen in the UK as an important way in which higher education can contribute to economic development, but it can be argued that to focus on these skills represents a narrow and insufficient response to what employers —— and the wider interest —— really need (see Stephenson’s [1998] argument for a “capability” approach to higher education and, more broadly, the discussion in part 2 of Barnett [1994]. However the contested nature of this aspect of higher education might be resolved, current discussions have left relatively unexplored the broader implications for curricula2 and, in particular, for fist-cycle provision.
In earlier times many took the view that a first degree3 was a sufficient basis for lifetime career. The accelerating pace of knowledge development has undermined this conception, and increasing attention is now being given to the provision of degree programs and other opportunities for professional development. This raises a serious question: what function does the first degree serve in the context of lifelong learning?
Logically, it makes no sense in today’s world to try to pack first degree curricula with all the knowledge, understanding and skills need for the rest of a lifetime. There simply is not the time available, and anyway curriculum-packing runs the risk of superficiality of learning4. A first degree should, if they have not already acquired it, development in students the ability to learn how to learn, as well as enhance their subject-specific expertise and other relevant skills. Te old saying is valid here: giving individual each a fish might feed them for a day, but teaching them the skills of fishing could feed them for a life.
There is a need to think of the first degree in terms of the quality, rather than the quantity, of students’ learning. In today’s world the first degree becomes more of a foundation qualification, upon which graduates will expect to build during their lives. Some might react by saying that to make such a shift implies a dilution of academic standards —— but the counter is that standards relate primarily to the quality and not the quantity, of students’ learning5. The reconstructed first degree need be no intellectual poor relation: academic rigor can be built into curricula of widely differing focus. The standards may well be different, but they do not have to be inferior.
Some reduction in the volume of discipline-specific content will require an adjustment of thought6 —— in particular, on the part of employers and professional bodies. The professional accreditation of some first degree programs is seen by some as an essential condition. However, there seems no necessary reason for this to be the case —— and it might well be to professions’ longer-term advantage if first degree curricula were to pay particular attention to developing in graduates the ability to learn to learn7, leaving subsequent professional and developmental activities to provide the “topping-up” that would cohere with the professional bodies’ expectations.
A strategic vision for higher education in the next millennium requires more than a muttering of the mantra of lifelong learning. Making lifelong learning “work” demands a sustained commitment t fitting together the pieces of the multi-dimensional jigsaw whose components include educational purposes, values and practicalities. Academics are among the people who ought to relish this jigsaw’s challenge.
1 echoing a key them of the immediately preceding Dearing Report in the UK.
2 However the contested nature of this aspect of higher education might be resolved, current discussions have left relatively unexplored the broader implications for curricula
3 first degree
4 curriculum-packing runs the risk of superficiality of learning
5 but the counter is that standards relate primarily to the quality and not the quantity, of students’ learning
6 Some reduction in the volume of discipline-specific content will require an adjustment of thought
7 it might well be to professions’ longer-term advantage if first degree curricula were to pay particular attention to developing in graduates the ability to learn to learn.
II.   Read the following passage and answer the following questions: (28 points)
When the Grand Old man of Victorian England, William Ewart Gladstone, was in his 85th year, he was steering the second home-rule bill for Ireland through a recalcitrant parliament and going home to translate the odes of Horace at night. When Ronald Reagan reached the tender age of 73, he was fighting his second presidential election campaign. Alan Greenspan, the world’s most successful central banker, is also 73. Politics and economics are plainly jobs that the old can do well. They are not alone. The boardrooms of the world’s big companies are full of non-executive sages, telling whippersnapper 40-somethings how to run their firms.1
Why, then, are so few of the rich world’s old folk in employment? They live longer and enjoy better health than their parents did. Most jobs have become less physically demanding; most people in late middle age are well educated; most evidence suggests that training older workers, if done sensibly, is no harder than training the young. Bu the figures show an astonishing and long-drawn-out retreat from the job market. As recently as 1960, men could expect to spend 50 of their 68 years of life in paid work. Today, they are likely to work for only 38 of their 76 years. Fewer than two-thirds of men in their late 50s and early 60s ate in the rich world’s labor force. Indeed, by the time they celebrate their 55th birthday, more than half of Europe’s men have gone home to translate Horace. 2
For most, that is something to celebrate. Never before have so many people been able to look forward to so many years of healthy leisure. Two-thirds of people say that they like being retired and have no desire to go back to weww grandchildren to enjoy, foreign countries to visit, books to read and golf games to play. The pleasures of old age are less expensive, and more widely available, than ever before. 3
The big question is whether all of this retirement is voluntary. It is worthy asking for its own sake; in a liberal society, the old, too, should be free to choose. But, in addition, the stampede to retire has consequences not merely for the old themselves. And it is often being encouraged by perverse public policy.
Widespread and early retirement will increasingly affect the lives of everyone else, for two reasons. The first is a familiar one: as the share of old folk in the population rises, so will the burden on the young of paying or their pensions and health care. The second is less discussed: the rise of the grey-headed leisured class has consequences for economic growth because of its impact on the supply of labor and of capital.
Many governments, their eyes focused on the impact that future pensions claims will have on public finances, have embarked on reforms —— but not always reforms that give pensioners a freer choice. For their eyes are also trained, in the shorter term, on high unemployment.4 Governments, especially in Western Europe, are pressing more people to retire early, on the mistaken view that this will provide jobs for the young, even as they try to trim pensioners’ entitlements in order to reduce the burden on public finances. This is unforgivable from a liberal point of view. It is also foolish from the perspective of public policy.
The sheer size of the baby-boom generation that starts to teach retirement age over the coming decade me4ans that there will be a simple, but huge imbalance: too few people in work, paying taxes and pension contributions; too many in retirement, drawing on pensions and running up health costs. In that he main alternatives will be to renege on the pensions that workers thought they had been promised, or to raise taxes. It would be far better for the health of economies if more older people went on working instead. Quite small rises in the ages at which people retire have large effects. 5 As long as older folk stay in the job market, they pay taxes (helping one side of the fiscal balance) and draw either no pension, or a smaller one (helping the other).
Governments should recognize that people (like politicians) would prefer to decide for themselves when to retire. As present, the choice is, perversely, biased in favor of retirement. For example, in many countries, the opportunity cost of working beyond the minimum retirement age is high: workers must often leave the job market in order to receive a state pension, and even where this is not the case, they rarely earn any extra pension for their additional taxes and contributions. If they claim disability benefit, as many in their late 50s and early 60s do, their pension rights are rarely affected. Such perverse incentives should be replaced with neutrality.
Employers, often urged on by trade unions, also put obstacles of their own in the way of older workers. Pension schemes based on defined benefits make it disproportionately expensive to offer jobs to older people. Pay schemes that reward long service more than merit and productivity make it disproportionately costly to keep older workers on the payroll.6 And sheer discrimination, formally banned in the United States but flourishing in most countries, persuades many older folk to go home rather than risk probable rebuff.
Would such changes coax 60-year-olds off the golf course? In America, where jobs for older workers are plentiful and the government is scrapping the tax disincentives for older folk to work, early retirement has begun to fall. Gie people a choice, and they might surprise you.
l  Whipper-snapper: an insignificant, esp. young, person who appears impertinent.
Answer the following questions.
1.  The boardrooms of the world’s big companies are full of non-executive sages, telling whippersnapper 40-somethings how to run their firms.      (1) What is the meaning of “boardroom” in this sentence?      (2) What is meant by “non-executive sages”?      (3) What is meant by “whipper-snapper 40 somethings”
2. By the time they celebrate their 55th birthday, more than half of Europe’s men have gone home to translate Horace.           Do they really go home to translate poetry?      What do they do?
3. The pleasures of old age are less expensive, and more widely available, than ever before.
Explain the idea of this sentence in your own words.
4. For their eyes are also trained, in the shorter term, on high unemployment.
What is the meaning of this sentence? Explain in your own words.
5. Quite small rises in the ages at which people retire have large effects.
Explain in your own words.
6. Pay schemes that reward long service more than merit and productivity make it disproportionately costly to keep older workers on the payroll.         (1) Why is it very costly to keep older workers on the payroll?     (2) What is meant by “to keep…on the payroll”?       7. Does the author of this article advocate that workers reaching retirement age should stay on their jobs? If so, why? If not, what does he advocate?
I.   Translate the following Chinese passage into English (40 points)
从诞生的那天起，人类就开始一刻也不停地创造着他的文明。从埃及的金字塔到中国的万里长城，从达·芬奇名画中蒙娜丽莎那微笑到梵高那色彩斑斓的向日葵，从撼人心魄的英雄交响曲到动人的天鹅湖，从《荷马史诗》到《红楼梦》，无一不是前人留个后世的宝贵财产。      就中国人而言，对秦始皇兵马俑，我们有无限的赞叹，对于万里长城，我们有无限的自豪。但对于我们的无形遗产、曾经塑造了我们民族精神的——儒家、道家文化，我们却知之甚少。传统中的视个人道德为人生的最高价值所在，已在“现代生活”中成为笑谈。我们不仅在生活方式上盲目追求西方，不仅说着写着已经欧化的句子，而且在文学、历史、哲学这些人文学科领域里，到处用着西方的理论、术语。我们这里并不是反对西方的东西，西方的这些理论都是世界文化遗产的一份子，我们也应该加以保护和继承。但是，一个民族之所以成其为一个民族，必须有其自身的东西。我们应该认真地研究和思考本民族的文化典籍，在继承与更新中把其中所铭刻的文化脉络延续下去。

I.       将下列短文译成英语（35％）
失败产品
提到产品，人们往往对名牌、精品津津乐道，而对一般产品却不屑一顾，对失败产品更是讳莫如深。其实，如同干任何事情都难有百分之百的把握一样，研制开发新产品也难免会遭遇失败。
据悉，美国纽约有一个失败产品博物馆，该馆展出了美国大量不受欢迎的产品，目前总数已达8万多件。该馆还向人民提供这样一个数字:美国每年推向市场的产品达5400多种，而真正收到青睐的只有20％。
应该说，我们的许多生产厂家都能正视失败产品，并从失败产品中汲取教训，比如有的企业专门设立失败产品陈列室、劣质产品样品仓库等等，但也有一些企业不能正确对待失败产品。更有甚者，在研制开发产品时动辄提出“只许成功，不许失败”的口号，这不仅有违客观规律，也是不现实的。
失败产品的原因市多种多样的，有的不符合市场要求，有的上市时间太迟，还有的品名、商标有问题等等，都有待研究。失败产品其实是一面镜子，经营者在研制开发产品时都不妨对着这面镜子照一照、瞧一瞧，以免重蹈覆辙。
II.      将下列单句译成英语（15％）
1.  在全球经济日趋一体化的当今世界里，任何国家和地区的经济发展变化都与国际大环境的发展变化休戚相关，在瞬息万变、高风险的证券市场中，这一点体现得尤为突出。
2.近年来，尽管我国政府坚持把控制人口，节约资源，保护环境放在重要位置，一步步提升环境保护力度，但是环境恶化的趋势还没有得到有效控制。
3.建立现代企业制度，增强成本意识与竞争观念，促进企业经营管理水平的提高，从而提高国际竞争能力，这是企业发展的根本途径。
III.     将下列短文译成汉语（35％）
No issue is more in need of rethinking than the concept of humanitarian intervention put forward as the administration’s contribution to a new approach to foreign policy. The air war in Kosovo is justified as establishing the principle that the international community —— at least NATO —— will henceforth punish the transgressions of governments against their own people. But we did not do so in Algeria, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Croatia, Rwanda, the Caucasus, the Kurdish area and many other regions. But what are the criteria for this distinction? And what will be our attitude to emerging ethnic conflicts in Asia, for example in Indonesia and the Philippines? The answer often given is that we act where we are able to without undue risk. And what kind of humanism expresses its reluctance to suffer military casualties by devastating the civilian economy of its adversary for decades to come?
Moral principles are expressed in absolutes. But foreign policy must forever be concerned with reconciling ends and means. The fact that ethnic cleansing is repugnant does not obviate the need to devise the most appropriate response. At every stage of the Kosovo tragedy, other mixes of diplomacy and force were available, though it is not clear they were ever seriously considered. A tragedy that vindicates its moral convictions only from altitudes above 15,000 feet —— and in the process devastates Serbia and makes Kosovo unlivable —— has already produced more refugees and casualties than any conceivable alternative mix of force and diplomacy would have. It deserves to be questioned on both political and moral grounds.
IV.      将下列单句译成汉语（15％）
1.  Modern Asian buildings airily defy gravity in a way only possible if one were to design and build with full conviction in how Newton’s mechanics works.
2.  Asia’s industrialization and economic expansion are predicated on people in our region internalizing the mathematical and scientific norms that first emerged in the West. That Asia itself now has contributed to advances in the region shows how we have become a part of this scientific culture.
3.  The idea that technology raises questions about their future is not new to those in the newspaper industry these days. … In their worst nightmares, they fear that newspapers may be to communications business what the horse and cart were to transport.

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 don’t 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.2
There 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.4
   Fortunately, 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 don’t 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 can’t 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 else’s. (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-Elysées 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25－30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 UN’s 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 Iraq’s oil industry and, second, by the Sanctions Committee’s 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 set in their views on Iraqi sanctions, seeing the situation in black and white. Now there is a large grey area, and an insistent question: are sanctions still the right policy? The authors document the impact of sanctions on the lives of ordinary Iraqis, and the arguments for change are pretty convincing. The undecided should pay heed.
IV.      将下列单句译成汉语（15％）
1.  We need to break that vicious circle of AIDS, poverty, conflict, AIDS. For the truth is that not only does AIDS threaten stability, but when peace breaks down it fuels AIDS.
2.  The objective of nuclear non-proliferation is not helped by the fact that the nuclear weapon states continue to insist that those weapons in their hands enhance security, while in the hands of others they are a thread to world peace.
3.  In the developing countries, the labor force engaged in global production typically includes a large proportion of women —— whether in textiles, electronics, data processing or chip manufacturing. In many cases, these women work in conditions and for wages that are appalling, and which we must strive to improve.

I.       Reading Comprehension
This section contains two passages. Read each passage and then answer the questions given at the end of the passage.
Passage One
Just before Sept. 11 changed storytelling in America forever, my Hollywood agent explained that my new novel was doomed in movieland because it lacked sufficient “explosive moments.” Given this, the fact that the Defense Department is currently consulting with Hollywood scriptwriters and producers to help U.S. generals “think outside the box” is beyond comprehension. Hollywood storytellers invented the box. They worship the box. They have spent their lives mass-producing the box.
As American movie geniuses scramble to reinvent their formula and edit out scenes that might offend post-Sept. 11 sensibilities, I feel a wonderful release. The box is dead. The tyranny of Hollywood has temporarily abated. What will fill the storytelling vacuum has yet to be seen. But my bet is that the appetite for stories that explore violence and mayhem, rather than exploiting them, will have an even broader appeal.
Although the body count is traditionally high in my genre, the best thrillers and crime novels have never been about thrills or crimes. They are about the often subtle, often banal inner workings of evil, and about the many shapes of heroism —— those impossible struggles of the individual challenged by forces that threaten his soul more than his body.
Certainly, some of the landscape of popular fiction is changed. Stock characters that have been so reliable in their ability to scare us silly —— serial killers, stalkers, hit men, mob bosses, psychopathic cannibals —— wither and turn to dust in the face of the far more potent forms of evil we have encountered.
Real-life heroes reshape standards for bravery. Who has not tested his imagination by banding together with strangers on that doomed plane, throwing together a hasty plan, then storming down the narrow aisle to tackle a group of razor-wielding thugs? Who hasn’t imagined himself pushing upward into those smoke-darkened hallways as choking civilians rush out of harm’s way, while all around us a faint rumble rises?
Thriller writers grapple with the devilish distinction between revenge and justice, and show violence and bravery in their starkest forms. Books like Huckleberry Finn, Moby-Dick and A Farewell to Arms share the gritty sensibility and brutally honest portraits of violence that distinguish the modern thriller.
Since Sept. 11, my Hollywood agent has changed her tune. Now the reason my book will never be made into a film is that the one explosive moment it did contain a scene portraying an airliner brought down by terrorists. In a book written over a year ago, I’ve broken a brand new taboo. I get no points for prescience and want none. My barometer was twitching: that’s all I can say. I write about what scares me.
And these days everywhere I look, I see material.
1.  Explain the following sentences or phrases in English, bringing out the implied meaning, if there is any: (18 points)
(1) They have spent their lives mass-producing the box.               (2) … edit out scenes that might offend post-Sept. 11 sensibilities           (3) … the appetite for stories that explore violence and mayhem, rather than exploiting them, will have an even broader appeal                         (4) Although the body count is traditionally high in my genre.             (5) … wither and turn to dust in the face of the far more potent forms of evil…           (6) … my Hollywood agent has changed her tune                2.  Give a brief answer to the following questions: (6 points)
(1) What does the author mean by saying: “I’ve been broken a brand new taboo”?
Passage Two
It’s the first week of school at the University of California, Berkeley, and Sproul Plaza, the campus’s main thoroughfare, is bustling with the usual lunchtime crowd: protesters clanging garbage-can lids and plinking cowbells; upperclassmen blaring boomboxes; a jazz ensemble luring potential recruits with a Miles Davis standard. It’s a portrait of diversity in every way but one: skin color. A disproportionate number of the students walking around Sproul are Asian-Americans. Amy Tang, a third-year cognitive-science major, sits at a booth for the Chinese Student Association. “I came to Berkeley for the diversity,” she says, surveying the plaza. “But when I got here and saw all the Asians, it was really weird.”
Berkeley’s rapidly morphing student body has sparked one of the fiercest debates in higher education. The school’s Asian-American population had already been surging for years when, in 1996, California voters approved Proposition 209, a ballot initiative that banned affirmative action at all state institutions. At the time, the campus was torn by protests. And the result seemed to confirm the doomsayers’ predictions: enrollment of African-American, Hispanic and Native American students plunged at Berkeley; while the Asian-American population continued to rise. Asian-American students now make up about 45 percent incoming freshmen, white students 30 percent, Hispanic students 9 percent and African-American only 4 percent. And the drops in under-represented minorities are even more acute at the grad schools. William Bagley, a university regent who supports affirmative action, insists that the university’s most prestigious campuses —— like Berkeley —— have become “reverse ghettos, with Asians and whites and a lack of color.”
What accounts for the shift? To start, the pool of eligible Asian-American applicants was already huge. Nearby San Francisco boasts the highest percentage of Asian-Americans in the continental United States. And Asian-Americans are many times more likely than other groups to graduate at the top of their high-school classes. At Cal, many Asian-American students attribute heir academic success to family pressure and, in some cases, an immigrant mind-set. “There’s such a push to succeed,” says Marian Liu, a fifth-year student at Cal whose father was a Chinese immigrant. Ward Connerly, a UC regent who is one of the most vocal opponents of affirmative action, says that before 209, Asian-American students were discriminated against. “There was this fear that without the use of race, the whole campus would become Asian,” he says.
It’s a much different picture for Berkeley’s African-American, Hispanic and Native American students. Even after they’ve been admitted, Berkeley has a tough time persuading them to enroll. Brett Byers, a fourth-year business major who runs the schools’ Black Recruitment and Retention Center, calls prospectives to try to persuade them to come to Cal. “When I call, they think there are no black students here,” she says. Byers recently helped reprise a tradition —— called “Black Wednesday” —— where the campus’s dwindling population of black students could relax, network and socialize on Sproul. “There was a time when students of color used to hang out all the time on Sproul,” says Anya Booker, a friend and adviser of Byer’s who graduated from Berkeley in 1989. “The shame is that it’s been reduced to a single Wednesday.” And students say the lack of underrepresented minorities is apparent in class —— especially the grad schools. Serena Lin, a first-year law student who was also an undergraduate at Berkeley, says she sat in on a drug-policy seminar when she was a prospective student. “They were talking about how U.S. drug policy affects minorities,” she says. “And there wasn’t a single African-American in the class.
These days Berkeley is trying to adjust to life after 209. The campus’s biggest new buzzword is “outreach.” The University of California is spending $150 million —— more than twice the pre-209 number —— in an effort to increase the pool of qualified underrepresented minority students. And Daniel Hernandez, editor of the school newspaper, says that despite all the challenges, race relations on campus are relatively healthy. “Students are sort of settling into the way things are.” says Hernandez. But is that necessarily good? Underrepresented minorities have long been the backbone of Berkeley’s political mood, energizing the campus. In gaining a new face, Berkeley will have to live with what it has lost.
1.  Explain the following sentences or phrases in English, bringing out the implied meaning, if thee is any: (18 points)                             (1) It’s a portrait of diversity in every way but one: skin color.              (2) And the result seemed to confirm the doomsayers’ predictions…             (3) And he drops in underrepresented minorities are even more acute at the grad schools.          (4) … an immigrant mind-set                       (5) Students are sort of settling into the way things are…                  (6) … have long been the backbone of Berkeley’s political mood, energizing the campus
2.  Answer the following questions briefly and to the point: (18 points)         (1) Why does the author say that university’s most prestigious campuses like Berkeley “have become reverse ghettos, with Asians and whites and a lack of color”?                 (2) What does the author mean when he says: “In gaining a new face, Berkeley will have to live with what it has lost.”?                           (3) How does the author feel about proposition 209?
I.       Translate the following passage into English: (40 points)
爱国者人爱之，自尊者人尊之
记得在苏黎世大学进行为期一年的博士后研修时，由于勤奋努力，我提前两个月完成了我的课题研究任务。当导师古根汉姆教授读完我提交的6篇论文时，惊喜万分。没过几天，校方拿来一份合同，提出以1.2 万瑞士法郎（约合人民币6万元）的月薪聘我担任研究员，我毫不犹豫地拒绝了。
我的举动大大出乎教授的意料，当天晚上，一向惜时如金的他，破例邀我去散步。我告诉他我之所以这么做的原因:第一，我的祖国很需要我；第二，我又我的阴阳，我的所作所为不能违背我的信仰。我正想礼节性地道个歉，他却阻止了我，对我说，薛，你是第一个拒绝我的人，但你的选择却使我更为敬重你。教授感叹道，虽然我信仰的东西不一样，但能为信仰而活着、而奋斗的人，总是令人尊敬的。
我从瑞士归国时，古根汉姆教授免费送我价值3000多美元的菌株合一本亲笔签名的最新著作。而在这之前，我就是出高价购买这种菌株，教授也是不会答应的。
我先后去过5个国家留学，与20多个国家的人共过事，从中我发现一个现象:爱国者人爱之，自尊者人尊之。人是要有一点精神的，这种精神就是理想、信念、民族自尊心、自信心合自豪感的总和。   苏黎世大学   University of Zurich                    古根汉姆   Guggenheim   瑞士法郎   Swiss franc 菌株     bacterial strain

I.       将下列短文译成英语（35％）
人有男女性别之分，而法律讲性别吗？
我国宪法明文规定，妇女在政治、经济、文化、社会和家庭各个方面享有与男子同等的权利 。既然男女同权、男女平权，法律应该是不讲性别的，这样才能达到男女平等，才算是真正的公平。
但事实上，在法律保护妇女、社会尊重妇女、男女平等的今天，男女不平等的现象依然或多或少地存在着。这是“男尊女卑”、女性依附男性的历史留下的“后遗症”。所以，大家不得不面对这样一个现实:在当代，尽管女性的已经有了很大提高，但和男性相比，还是术语需要关照的弱势群体。
针对这一现象，我国现行法律对女性给予了特殊关照，有专门的《妇女权益保障法》，而在《婚姻法》、《继承法》等法律规定中也有专门的保护条款。对于男性，则没有这样的专门保护。从这个角度讲，法律也是讲“性别”的。
在立法中多一点女性视角，对于当代立法者更具有现实意义。单不说现实生活中存在的男女不平等现象，就是立法者大多数是男性这个事实，便有可能使我们的法律在不知不觉中就已带上男性的印记，所以，立法者必须超出社会现有的习惯，将更多的视角偷盗妇女这个弱势群体上，在立法中，应多以电女性视角，对女性多一些关怀，多一些保护。
女性，是目前，是女儿，是姐妹......在立法时多一点女性视角，并不意味着忽视男性的权益，而在于最大程度地实现男女在法律上的平等，从而实现男女在现实生活中的平等。
如果有一天，法律不再需要对女性特殊关照的性别视角，那么，男女之间，就真正地平等了。
II.      将下列单句译成英语（15％）
1.  革命是解放生产力，改革也是解放生产力。
2.  计划经济不等于社会主义，资本主义也有计划；市场经济不等于资本主义，社会主义也有市场。
3.  总之，几年的实践证明，我们搞改革、开放的路子是走对了。
III.     将下列短文译成汉语（35％）
In England in the early 17th century, the Stuart monarchy, to finance its expenditures, increasingly resorted to “forced loans” —— where the lender had no recourse if loans were not repaid. This practice was one of many highly visible signs that the regime had no commitment to protecting property rights. Other indications include outright confiscation of land and funds, forced public procurement at below-market prices, a willingness to remove judges who ruled against the Crown, and the sale of monopoly rights over various lucrative economic activities. This arbitrary exercise of sovereign power was interrupted during the civil war in the middle of the century, but the restoration of the monarchy was accompanied by the return of the same excesses.
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 ushered in a series of fundamental changes in political institutions that limited the arbitrary exercise of power by the sovereign. The revolution established the supremacy of parliament over the taxes and audit of the expenditures of the Crown. These steps were followed by the establishment of the Bank of England, which exercised important control over public finances. The result of these changes was a more equitable division of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. These restraints on the arbitrary exercise of power greatly enhanced the state’s ability to finance public expenditures by issuing debt.
The impact of these changes in political institutions and in the protection of property rights can be seen in the development of debt markets. In 1688 the Crown was able to place public debt equivalent to only 2 to 3 percent of GDP —— and only of very short maturity and at very high interest rates. By 1697 the Crown was able to place and service debt equivalent to 40 percent of GDP, at lower interest rates and with longer maturities. The emergence of a functioning public debt market in turn benefited the development of the private capital markets that helped finance the Industrial Revolution that followed.
IV.      将下列单句译成汉语（15％）
1.  The very low amounts of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium in these stars indicate that they must have formed early in the history of the Galaxy before large amounts of heavy elements were created inside the initial generations of stars.
2.  The recent speculation includes the possibility that the first living cells might have arisen on Mars, seeding Earth via the many meteorites that are known travel from Mars to our planet.
3.  Governments and their international agencies are these days mindful that public opinion is anything but squarely behind them.