当前位置：首页 > 英语高级口译岗位资格证书考试 > - 问题列表
- <问答题>Practice 3 中华文明历来注重自强不息，不断革故鼎新。“天行健，君子以自强不息。”这是中国的一句千年传世格言。中华民族所以能在5000多年的历史进程中生生不息、发展壮大，历经挫折而不屈，屡遭坎坷而不馁，靠的就是这样一种发愤图强、坚忍不拔、与时俱进的精神。 中国人民在改革开放中表现出来的进取精神，在建设国家中焕发出来的创造热情，在克服前进道路上的各种困难中表现出来的顽强毅力，正是这种中国传统文化中自强不息精神的生动写照。
解析
- <单选题>The passage implies that new limits on land ownership ______.
解析
- <单选题>The passage implies that the new constitution ______.
解析
- <问答题>Practice 4 In like manner we cannot refer the whole phenomena of the Renaissance to any one cause or circumstance, or limit them within the field of any one department of human knowledge. If we ask the students of art what they mean by the Renaissance, they will reply that it was the revolution effected in architecture, painting, and sculpture by the recovery of antique monuments. Students of literature, philosophy, and theology see in the Renaissance that discovery of manuscripts, that passion for antiquity, that progress in philology and criticism, which led to a correct knowledge of the classics, to a fresh taste in poetry, to new systems of thought, to more accurate analysis, and finally to the Lutheran schism and the emancipation of the conscience. Men of science will discourse about the discovery of the solar system by Copernicus and Galileo, the anatomy of Vesalius, and Harvey’s theory of the circulation of the blood. The origination of a truly scientific method is the point which interests them most in the Renaissance. The political historian, again, has his own answer to the question. The externalities of Europe, the growth of monarchy, the limitation of the ecclesiastical authority and the erection of the Papacy into an Italian kingdom, and in the last place the gradual emergence of that sense of popular freedom which exploded in the Revolution.
解析
- <单选题>China and Russia’s speeches ______.
解析
- <问答题>Practice 1 Modern intolerance, like ancient Gaul, is divided into three parts; the intolerance of laziness, the intolerance of ignorance and the intolerance of self-interest. The first of these is perhaps the most general. It is to be met with in every country and among all classes of society. It is most common is small villages and old-established towns, and it is not restricted to human beings. It is this particular variety of intolerance which makes parents shake their heads over the foolish behavior of their children, which has caused the absurd myth of “the good old days”; which makes savages and civilized creatures wear uncomfortable clothes; which fills the world with a great deal of superfluous nonsense and generally turns all people with a new idea into the supposed enemies of mankind. The second variety is much more, serious. An ignorant man is, by the very fact of his ignorance, a very dangerous person. But when he tries to invent an accuse for his own lack of mental faculties, he becomes a holy terror. For then he erects within his soul a granite bulwark of self-righteousness and from the high pinnacle of this formidable fortress, he defies all his enemies to show cause why they should be allowed to live. There remains as a third category the intolerance caused by self-interest. (Hendrik Willem Van Loon: Tolerance)
解析
- <单选题>The forum’s official theme this year “shaping the post-crisis world” ______.
解析
- <单选题>The following aspects explain why Spaniards have a minor alcohol problem EXCEPT ______.
解析
- <单选题>The passage implies that protectionism ______.
解析
- <问答题>Passage 1 Britain is still home to some of the world’s best scientists—but when it comes to giving them the money to turn their ideas into world-beating companies we are third-rate. True? “That’s gulf,” is the impatient response of Anne Glover, a leading venture capitalist. She believes this is the best time since the short-lived dot corn bubble for anyone looking to get their idea funded: “It’s never been better, except during the boom for a short nine-month period.” Not from the perspective of Noah Freedman, who has tried to get venture capital firms interested in Ionscope, a firm using world-leading science from Imperial College and Cambridge University. “I don’t think the situation has improved in the UK over the last decade,” he says. But Anne Glover, whose venture capital firm Amadeus Capital has backed businesses such as lastminute, corn, Cambridge Silicon Radio and Plastic Logic, points to the figures. Last year ￡lbn of venture capital money was invested in young firms in the UK—that’s more than a third of all the money invested across Europe. “We get beaten up all the time,” says Ms Glover, “but which other sector has as big a share of the European market?” And just as in other industries there are fashions in venture capital. What’s hot right now? Mobile technology, semi-conductors, and consumer internet firms, according to Amadeus—rather similar to what was getting funded during the last booming 2000. That ended with a bust which sawn many start-ups disappear and “was followed by several years in which venture capitalists seemed to have gone into hiding. But Anne Glover says they’ve come through the experience stronger. “The ones who have survived the boom and bust are experienced and well-funded and have similar global aspirations to the best entrepreneurs.” But Noah Freedman, an entrepreneur who was previously involved in Brainspark, an incubator for technology start-ups, says there is still a funding gap. Ionscope, which makes very high resolution microscopes, was not able to raise venture capital until it had sold its first products. “The bottom line is that in the UK, it may be easy to get venture capital money to fund growth of an established concept or business, but it is exceptionally difficult to get seed and start-up money for real innovation.” Anne Glover says the real problem is a lack of ambition, from both investors and entrepreneurs. “We maybe spread our money too thinly rather than concentrate on the best ideas. When we’ve got a world-leading company that’s the point where we need to finance it properly.” She says she spends more time trying to raise the ambitions of start-up firms rather than lower them. So what’s the lesson from those who have made it? Alex van Someren is one entrepreneur who did raise the money to create a successful global business. His Cambridge-based internet security company Ncipher raised venture capital money between 1996 and 2000, and then floated just in the nick of time before the stock market crash. He believes we are making progress: “Both investors and the people they invest in have become much more sophisticated.” He says the problem is not a lack of money or ideas. “There is plenty of both—but ideas are not the same as investable businesses.” But he says young companies are now more likely to turn to business angels—often people who have built their own firms—rather than venture capitalists: “Angels have done it themselves, so they bring more added value—and they’re willing to invest in businesses too small for venture funds to look at.” What Britain doesn’t have—despite attempts to brand Cambridge as Silicon Fen—is one area that can compete with Silicon Valley as a place which produces innovative businesses and the investors to fund them. But Anne Glover says we shouldn’t get hung up on the comparison: “You would find the same inferiority complex in Indiana or Wisconsin—Silicon Valley is unique. It’s difficult to raise venture capital anywhere in the world. Entrepreneurship is hard and don’t expect it to be easy.” The good news is that, when it comes to innovation, Britain has a growing number of entrepreneurs who have been there and done that. Many are now starting new firms or investing in other start-ups. Their only fear is that the latest boom in technology investment could melt away like the last one. 1. Briefly describe the last boom. 2. What advantages have the companies which survived last boom got? 3. What is the difference on capital choice for young companies between the last boom and this latest one? Why?
解析
- <问答题>Practice 3 In men, good looks is a whole, something taken in at a glance. It does not need to be confirmed by giving measurements of different regions of the body; nobody encourages a man to dissect his appearance, feature by feature. As for perfection, that is considered trivial—almost unmanly. Indeed, in the ideally good-looking man a small imperfection or blemish is considered positively desirable. To preen, for a woman, can never be just a pleasure. It is also a duty. It is her work. If a woman does real work—and even if she has clambered up to a leading position in politics, law, medicine, business, or whatever—she is always under pressure to confess that she still works at being attractive. But in so far as she is keeping up as one of the Fair Sex, she brings under suspicion her very capacity to be objective, professional, authoritative, thoughtful. Damned if they do—women are. And damned if they don’t. How easy it is to start off by defining women as caretakers of their surfaces, and then to disparage them (or find them adorable) for being “superficial”. It is a crude trap, and it has worked for too long. But to get out of the trap requires that women get some critical distance from the excellence and privilege which is beauty, enough distance to see how much beauty itself has been abridged in order to prop up the mythology of the “feminine”. There should be a way of saving beauty from women—and for them.
解析
- <问答题>Passage 2 A new form of cloning to provide every baby with an embryonic “twin”, from which spare body parts could be grown and life threatening diseases treated is expected to be approved within weeks by senior government advisers on medical ethics. If their report is accepted by ministers, it would mean that Britain—which 20 years ago pioneered the test tube baby and last year produced Dolly, the world’s first cloned mammal—could be the first to clone a human embryo. A working party from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and the Human Genetics Advisory Commission is expected to come down firmly against reproductive cloning, the process of replicating a living human being. It is expected to recommend government support of so called stem ceils. Stem cells are extracted and used to grow spare parts, treat diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s or address the debilitating effects of cancer, strokes and heart attacks. Dr Austin Smith, the scientist likely to be granted the first licence for the work, said that within the next 12 years it would be routine for every baby to have an embryonic clone. “All it takes now is financial investment,” said Smith, director of Edinburgh University’s centre for genome research. The crucial discovery of embryonic stem cells, from which skin, bone, muscles, nerves and vital organs grow, was made earlier this month by scientists in America. In a submission to the HFEA, Smith said that in order to isolate these cells it is only necessary for the embryo to develop in the laboratory for six days, well within the 14-day limit of current regulation. The cells would then be grown and manipulated to make anything from blood or brain cells to tissue for repairing damaged organs and, ultimately, parts that could be transplanted without fear of the host body rejecting them. The development is likely to meet strong opposition from the church. Dr Donald Bruce, Director of the Society, Religion and Technology Project of the church of Scotland Said that creating an embryo in the knowledge that it would then be destroyed was “very disturbing” to most people. Father Paul Murray, secretary to the Catholic bishops joint bio-ethics committee, said that whatever the potential benefits, it should be regarded as “intrinsically evil” because the research depended on the use of foetal material. However, Professor Christine Gosden, professor of genetic medicine at Liverpool University, one of the four senior government advisers on the cloning sub-committee, said there would be no opportunity for abuse. For many years, patients with Parkinson’s disease who did not respond to drugs have been treated with brain cells extracted from aborted foetuses, a practice approved by a committee led by the Rev Dr John Polkinghorne, the prominent ethicist. Gosden said the arguments for the use of aborted foetal cells and therapeutic cloning were similar: “Before you have a disease, it is easy to say, ‘I would not use cells derived from a foetus’, but if you suffer from that disease, and that is your only hope, your approach can be quite different.” 1. What is the new form of cloning discussed in the passage? What is the purpose of such cloning? 2. Summarise the different views on embryo cloning discussed in the passage. 3. Explain the statement “All it takes now is financial investment.” in para. 6. 4. What is the significance of the discovery of embryonic stem cells?
解析
- <问答题>Practice 4 Charles Darwin didn’t want to murder God, as he once put it. But he did. He didn’t want to defy his fellow Cantabrigians, his gentlemanly Victorian society, his devout wife. But he did. He waited 20 years to publish his theory of natural selection, but—fittingly, after another scientist threatened to be first—he did. Before Darwin, most people accepted some version of biblical creation. Humans were seen as the apotheosis of godly architecture. Humans could thus be an accident of natural selection, not a direct product of God. Worries about how much his theory would shake society exacerbated the strange illnesses he suffered. It’s also worth noting that Darwin’s life wasn’t Darwinian: he achieved his wealth through inheritance, not competition, and some might say his sickly children suffered because they were inbred. Darwin’s theories still provoke opposition. One hundred and forty years after The Origin of Species, backers of creationism have made a comeback in states like Kansas, pushing evolution out of the schoolroom. Yet Darwinism remains one of the most successful scientific theories ever promulgated. There is hardly an element of humanity—not capitalism, not gender relations, certainly not biology—that can be fully understood without its help.
解析
- <问答题>Passage 8 Some people might want a “double tall skinny hazelnut decaf latte”, but Howard Schultz is not one of them. The chairman and “chief global strategist” of the Starbucks coffee chain prefers a Sumatra roast with no milk, no sugar and poured from a French press—the kind of pure coffee, in fact, favoured by those coffee snobs who sneer at Starbucks, not just for its bewildering variety of choice and flavours (55,000 different drinks, by the company’s count), but for its very ubiquity—over 10,500 locations around the world, increasing at a rate of five a day, and often within sight of each other. Starbucks knows it cannot ignore its critics. Anti-globaiisation protesters have occasionally trashed its coffee shops; posh neighbourhoods in San Francisco and London have resisted the opening of new branches; and the company is a favourite target of internet critics, on sites like www.ihatestarbucks.com. Mr. Schultz is watchful, but relaxed: “We have to be extremely mindful and sensitive of the public’s view of things... Thus far, we’ve done a pretty good job.” Certainly, as reviled icons of American capitalism go, Starbucks is distinctly second division compared with big leaguers like, say, McDonald’s. The reason, argues Mr. Schultz, is that the company has retained a “passion” for coffee and a “sense of humanity”. Starbucks buys expensive beans and pays its growers—be they in Guatemala or Ethiopia—an average of 23% above the market price. A similar benevolence applies to company employees. Where other corporations seek to unload the burden of employee benefits, Starbucks gives all American employees working at least 20 hours a week a package that includes stock options (“Bean Stock”) and comprehensive health insurance. For Mr. Schultz, raised in a Brooklyn public-housing project, this health insurance—which now costs Starbucks more each year than coffee—is a moral obligation. At the age of seven, he came home to find his father, a lorry-driver, in a plaster cast, having slipped and broken an ankle. No insurance, no compensation and now no job. Hence what amounts to a personal crusade. Most of America’s corporate chiefs steer clear of the sensitive topic of health-care reform. Not Mr. Schultz. He makes speeches, lobbies politicians and has even hosted a commercial-free hour of television, arguing for reform of a system that he thinks is simultaneously socially unjust and a burden on corporate America. Meanwhile the company pays its workers’ premiums, even as each year they rise by double-digit percentages. The goal has always been “to build the sort of company that my father was never able to work for.” By this he means a company that “remains small even as it gets big”, treating its workers as individuals. Starbucks is not alone in its emphasis on “social responsibility”, but the other firms Mr. Schultz cites off the top of his head—Timberland, Patagonia, Whole Foods—are much smaller than Starbucks, which has 100,000 employees and 35m customers. Indeed, size has been an issue from the beginning. Starbucks was created in 1971 in Seattle’s Pike Place Market by three hippie-ish coffee enthusiasts. Mr. Schultz joined the company only in1982. Inspired by a visit to Milan in 1983, he had envisaged a chain of coffee bars where customers would chat over their espressos and cappuccinos. Following his dream, Mr. Schultz set up a company he called “Il Giornale”, which grew to a modest three coffee bars. Then, somehow scraping together $ 3.8m (“I didn’t have a dime to my name”), he bought Starbucks from its founders in 1987. Reality long ago surpassed the dream. Since Starbucks went public in 1992, its stock has soared by some 6,400%. The company is now in 37 different countries. No doubt the coffee snobs will blanch at the prospect. Yet they miss three points. The first is that, thanks to Starbucks, today’s Americans are no longer condemned to drink the insipid, over- percolated brew that their parents endured. The second, less recognised, is that because Starbucks has created a mass taste for good coffee, small, family-owned coffee houses have also prospered (and no one has ever accused Starbucks, with its $ 4 lattes, of undercutting the competition). The most important point, however, is that Mr. Schultz’s Starbucks cultivates a relationship with its Customers. Its stores sell carefully selected CD-compilations, such as Ray Charles’s “Genius Loves Company”. Later this year the company will promote a new film, “Akeelah and the Bee”, and will take a share of the profits. There are plans to promote books: Customers can even pay with their Starbucks “Duetto” Visa card. Short of some health scare that would bracket coffee with nicotine, there is no obvious reason why Starbucks should trip up, however ambitious its plans and however misconceived the occasional project. Mr. Schultz says: “I think we have the licence from our customers to do more.” The key is that each Starbucks coffee house should remain “a third place”, between home and work, fulfilling the same role as those Italian coffee houses that so inspired him 23 years ago. 1. What does the author mean by “Starbucks is distinctly second division compared with big leaguers like, say, McDonald’s”? According to Mr. Shultz, what is the reason for that? 2. What is Mr. Schultz’s “personal crusade”? What made him so devoted to it? 3. What does Mr. Shultz mean by “I think we have the license from our customers to do more”? (Para.10). Give some examples.
解析
- <问答题>Passage 3 Frustrated by excessive demands at work? Resentful of being passed over for a promotion? Afraid of losing your job? Never fear. A “toxic handler” may be near. Two University of British Columbia researchers poking around at the underside of corporate life have identified this new kind of hero. “Toxic handlers,” Peter Frost and Sandra Robinson write in the current Harvard Business Review, are employees skilled in removing the “metal toxins” of the modern workplace. The toxic handler — typically a senior manager but not the top boss — listens to troubled colleagues, invents creative solutions, and helps translate “mission impossible “ into “mission accomplished.” And far from being too focused on feelings to get the job done, toxic handlers make a real contribution to the corporate bottom line — if only by helping keep good people from leaving. One example the researchers cite is a computer executive in Europe who was asked to guide a 120- member team, already shell-shocked from downsizing into using an “open concept “office layout. It was a radical idea since the employees were used to private offices. The executive’s approach was simply to listen to his colleagues. He called himself “Big Ears,” says Mr. Frost. The transition went smoothly. “The only complaints were that there weren’t enough trash cans,” he says. By combining interpersonal skills with technical competence, toxic handlers such as Mr. “Big Ears” help “manage organizational pain,” Frost adds. The article is full of metaphors of pain and poison, but it also identifies opportunities for leadership that can be practiced by employees at any level of an organization. Frost ticks off four key points that came from his research. “The whole notion that there are people who step in and manage pain; the fact that there’s a lot of pain out there to manage, largely as a result of corporate downsizing; the fact that the people I dealt with (in this research) were not ‘bleeding hearts’ or human resources specialists; and that a lot of them got pretty sick.” It is critical that toxic handlers avoid taking on the pain themselves, say Frost and Robinson. Health-care professionals are typically trained to defend themselves against putting their own health at risk by getting too caught up in their patients problems, Frost notes. But toxic handlers in the corporate setting run the same risk of exposure without adequate defense. “Managers get sent in with pop guns and little tin shields,” says Frost, when they should be protected “as if they were handling radioactivity.” Some toxic handlers might be described simply as office peacemakers. Consider Alexandra, a vice president at a financial institution in New York, she spent half her time as peacemaker among colleagues. The new MBAs coming to work there “always came in acting like they owned the world,” she told researchers. “They tended to be pretty arrogant and heavy-handed with the secretaries and clerical workers. They offended them so much that they couldn’t concentrate on their work. “So first I had to explain to the staff that these young professionals were… just seriously lacking in interpersonal skills. Then I had to pull the new MBAs into my office and help them understand that being a boss didn’t mean bossing people around.” Frost’s work on the concept of toxic handlers began when he noticed that he felt particular run down and burnt out at the end of managing a stint in 1994. Since then, he and Robinson have studied what he calls a “rolling sample” of about 70 toxic handlers in Canada, The United States, I Europe, and Australia. By definition, their data is anecdotal, and they have no means of cross-checking their subjects-stories. But Frost is confident. “We’re onto something with authenticity.” Frost and Robinson insist that toxic handlers are not “enablers” who make it possible for their bosses to get away with bad behavior. But Frost sees the next phase of their research focusing on “the role of the toxic handlers in educating toxic bosses in order to improve the situation.” 1. What is a toxic handler? Who can work as a toxic handler? 2. What is the significance of the promotion of the concept “toxic handler”? Who first started the study on this concept? 3. Explain briefly the four key points raised by Mr. Frost from his research. 4. Tell the meaning of the following metaphors used in the passage. a) “He called himself ‘Big Ears’.”(para. 4) b) “… the people I dealt with… were not ‘bleeding hearts’ or …”(para. 5) c) “Managers get sent in with ‘popguns’ and little tin shields…”(para. 6) d) “… as if they were ‘handling radioactivity’.”(para. 6)
解析