2012考研英语(一)阅读翻译及解析

2012

Text 1

Come on –Everybody’s doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half forcing, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good-drinking, drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the Club, Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure, in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the word.

得了吧, 每个人都这样啊. 这种说法一半是邀请，一半是强制。当我们听到“同辈（趋同）压力”这个词组的时候我们想到的就是这种说法。这种信息一般让人想到不好的事情，比如喝酒，吸毒，一夜情。但是，在她的新书《参加这个俱乐部》, Tina Rosenberg认为，纯粹压力也是一种积极的力量，通过她所说的社会治疗，公司和官方人员可以使用群体力量去帮助个人提高他们的生活，而且也有可能提高整个人类世界的生活。

Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of example of the social cure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as LoveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers.

Rosenberg是普利策奖获得者，他提供了许多社会治疗的例子：

在南卡罗莱纳州，一个州资助的反对抽烟的项目叫做“向烟雾宣战”就旨在控制好烟草销售。在南非，预防HIV，即众所周知的“热爱生命”活动要求年轻人要安全性生活。

The idea seems promising，and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many pubic-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology.” Dare to be different, please don’t smoke!” pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers-teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure.

这个观点似乎很有希望，而且Rosenberg是个敏锐的观察家。她对于许多公共健康活动缺点的批评是中肯的：他们没能动员同辈压力来建立健康的习惯，他们展示的是对心理学的严重误解。一个旨在在青少年中禁烟的广告牌写着：“就敢与众不同，请勿吸烟！”青少年最渴望的是融入群体。Rosenberg认为，公共健康建议应该效仿广告商，广告商懂得如何应用同辈压力。

But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as it’s

presented here is that it doesn’t work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the LoveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.

但对于社会治疗的广泛效果，Rosenberg就没有那么有说服力了。《加入俱乐部》一书写了太多无关细节，没有认真探讨社会和生物因素，这些因素能使同辈压力变得很有影响力。这里说的社会治疗的明显缺点是它有效期不长。一旦资金来源消失，那么“向烟雾宣战”的活动就会失败。“热爱生命”活动能产生持久的影响这种说法的证据不足。

There’s no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits-as well as negative ones-spread through networks of friends via social communication. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we see every day.

毫无疑问，我们的同龄人会对我们的行为产生巨大影响。研究显示，积极的健康习惯，以及负面的习惯，会通过社会交流在朋友之间传播。这是同辈压力的一种微妙的形式：我们会无意识模仿我们每天看到的行为。

Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It’s like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic

never really works. And that’s the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.

但是，很难确定的是，专家和官员能否成功选择我们的同辈，控制好他们的行为能在道德的道路上发展。这就像老师，通过让问题学生和好学生坐在一起的方法，让后排学生不要凑在一起胡闹。这种方法从来就没有什么收效。这就是从外界设计出的社会治疗会产生问题所在：在真实的社会里，正如在学校，我们坚持会选择自己的朋友。 文章出处：

/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2061234,00.html herd mentality

21. According to the first paragraph, peer pressure often emerges as 根据第一段，同龄人的压力通常以什么样的状态出现：

[A] a supplement to the social cure

对于社会治疗的补充

[B] a stimulus to group dynamics

对于团队活力的刺激

[C] an obstacle to school progress

学校进步的阻碍

[D] a cause of undesirable behaviors

一些不良行为的原因

解析：这是一个细节题：对应文中It usually leads to no

good-drinking, drugs and casual sex.题干中的often对应原文中的usually;选项中undesirable behaviors对应no good-drinking, drugs and casual sex. lead对于cause.完美替换，四级难度，出题人很仁慈。

22. Rosenberg holds that public advocates should

罗森博格认为公共支持者应该：

[A] recruit professional advertisers

招募职业的广告人

[B] learn from advertisers’ experience

从广告人那里学习经验

[C] stay away from commercial advertisers

远离商业广告人

[D] recognize the limitations of advertisements

认识到广告的局限性

解析：本题为细节题，根据题干定位到：三段最后一句：Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure. 这样的句子的理解难点是一个短语：take a page from向谁学习，如果不懂，可以看后面的so skilled at applying，也能熟练的运用，一个“也”道出天机，小词有大乾坤啊!

23. In the author’s view, Rosenberg’s book fails to

作者认为Rosenberg未能：

[A] adequately probe social and biological factors

足够的探究社会和生物因素

[B] effectively evade the flaws of the social cure

有效地逃避社会治疗的缺点

[C] illustrate the functions of state funding

例证出国家基金的功能

[D]produce a long-lasting social effect

产生长期的社会影响

解析：细节题问观点;对应句子But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. 指出不足;后面一句中的主语Join the Club 为此人所写，所以后面的表述就是他的观点： not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful.：完美替换exploration对probe;

24. Paragraph 5shows that our imitation of behaviors

第五段表明对于行为的模仿：

[A] is harmful to our networks of friends

对于朋友的网络是有害的

[B] will mislead behavioral studies

会误导对于行为的研究

[C] occurs without our realizing it

在没有意识到的时候就出现了

[D] can produce negative health habits

会产生不良的健康习惯

解析：细节题 ;对应句子This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we see every day.对 unconsciously完美替换。

25. The author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect of peer pressure is

作者在最后一段中认为同龄人压力的效果是：

[A] harmful

[B] desirable

[C] profound

[D] questionable

解析：局部态度题对应Far less certain, however, is…The tactic never really works…表明作者对于这个事物的看法是不确定的所以选最后一个

Text 2

A deal is a deal-except, apparently,when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations.

说好的是不能改变的! 除非Entergy进行的交易。这个公司是新英格兰地区主要的能源提供商，该公司引起了佛蒙特州人们的义愤，因为上周它宣称它不想遵守严格的核能规定。

Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It’s a stunning move.

相反，该公司一直履行了它早先的承诺过不做的事情：即它不会因为想保持其Vermont Yankee核电站持续经营，而要在联邦法院挑战该州相关规定的合法性（宪法）。现在这个做法让人震惊。

The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval. Then, too, the company went along.

这个冲突始于2002，当时该公司购买了佛蒙特州唯一一家核电站，其实是一个位于Vernon的破旧反应堆。该交易为了获得州政府的批准，该公司同意一个前提条件：即同意在2012年后征求州政府官员的同意继续经营。2006年，州政府又提出，该核电站能否延期经营要听从佛蒙特州立法机关的批准。当时，该公司也无异议。

Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the

discovery of an underground pipe system leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management– especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged by Entergy’s behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.

Entergy 从来没有打算要遵守这些承诺，也根本没有想过将来会发生什么。一系列的事件，包括2007年冷却塔的部分崩溃，以及地下管道系统泄露的发现，这些事使得人们严重怀疑Vermont Yankee电站的安全问题和Entergy的管理----尤其在该公司对其管道问题所做的误导性言论之后。佛蒙特州参议院对于Entergy的行为表示震怒，去年以26比4的投票反对其延期经营。

Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues. The legal issues in the case are obscure: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point.

现在该公司突然宣称2002年的协定是无效的，因为有2006年的

立法以及只有联邦政府拥有核电站管理权。该案的法律问题是模糊的：虽然最高法院判决过，各州的确有权管理核电站，但法学家说佛蒙特案为这种核电站究竟能延期多久设定了先例。显然，如果每个州设立自己的法规，那么关注一下各州拼凑的临时规定是必要的。但，要是Entergy遵守诺言，这个讨论就无关紧要了。

The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has nothing left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a public trust. Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth. Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company’s application, it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.

该公司似乎认定其已声名狼藉，没有什么后顾之忧，不如和佛蒙特州背水一战。但不良后果还是有的。经营核电站的许可权的问题是一个公共信任的问题。Entergy集团在美国还经营了11个反应堆，包括在普利茅斯的Pilgrim 反应堆。该公司许诺安全经营Pilgrim，要求联邦政府给予继续经营20年的许可。但是，核管理委员会(NRC)在审查该公司的申请的时候，它要牢记到底Entergy公司的哪个许诺是可信的。

文章出处：

/2011-04-24/bostonglobe/29469298_1_nuclear-power-plant-vermont-yankee-older-reactors

题目为：Vermont Yankee plant’s owner must honor its own promises

26. The phrase “reneging on”(Line 3.para.1) is closest in meaning to 短语“reneging on” 最接近那个意思：

[A] condemning.

谴责

[B] reaffirming.

再次确认

[C] dishonoring.

不守信用

[D] securing.

安全

解析：词意题：A deal is a deal之后出现except，表明前后相反;还有一次题眼：commitment to abide by;前面出现provoked justified outrage，一个是正当的愤怒，一个是守承诺，那么中间就只能是不受承诺了。答案为[C] dishonoring.

27. By entering into the 2002 agreement, Entergy intended to 同意2002年的协议，Entergy 公司希望：

[A] obtain protection from Vermont regulators.

获得Vermont 监管者的保护

[B] seek favor from the federal legislature.

寻求联邦立法机关的帮助

[C] acquire an extension of its business license .

要求延长商业执照的有效期

[D] get permission to purchase a power plant.

获得购买一个电厂的许可

解析：细节题根据题干对应文中The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon.

冲突从2002年开始就出现了，那个时候公司购买了Vermont唯一的一家核电站;在Vernon的一家很旧的反应堆。

As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. 作为获得州政府购买批准的条件，公司同意在2012年以后的运营需要征得州监管者的同意。2002 agreement对应the company agreed to;intended to对应As a condition of 因此答案为：receiving state approval for the sale;[D] get permission to purchase a power plant.完美替换。

28. According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seems to have problems with its

根据第四段，Entergy存在哪些方面的问题：

[A] managerial practices.

管理实践

[B] technical innovativeness.

技术创新

[C] financial goals.

财务目标

[D] business vision

经营愿景

解析：细节题：A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management

一系列的事故，包括2007年冷凝塔的部分坍塌，发现地下管道系统的泄露，这些都引起了对于Vermont Yankee 安全和公司管理的强烈关注。

所以答案应该是[A] managerial practices.

29. In the author’s view, the Vermont case will test

作者认为Vermont 的案例将会测试：

[A] Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its promises.

Entergy履行其承诺的能力

[B] the mature of states’ patchwork regulations.

各州补充规定的成熟程度

[C] the federal authority over nuclear issues .

对于核问题的联邦权威

[D] the limits of states’power over nuclear issues.

对于核问题各州权力的局限性

解析：细节题：对应句子：whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.

但是最高法院判定各州确实有一些对于核电站的调控权力，法律学者说这个案例将提供先例设定的测试，决定这些权力能扩展多远。 作者的观点借用legal scholars之口说出来。

30. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that

从最后一段中可以推知：

[A] Entergy’s business elsewhere might be affected.

Entergy’s在其他地方的生意可能会受到影响

[B] the authority of the NRC will be defied.

NRC的权威会受到挑衅

[C] Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application.

Entergy会撤回其在Plymouth的申请

[D] Vermont’s reputation might be damaged.

Vermont的名誉会遭到破坏

解析：段落推理题。重点对于段落中心和转折。这里没有中心却有转折The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in

Vermont is already so damaged that it has nothing left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should be consequences.

公司似乎可以得出结论其在vermont的名誉已经受到破坏了，所以它已经没有任何东西可以丢失了，于是可以和州政府开战了。但是这是有后果的。后面句子开始描述其在其他州的生意，可以知道对应答案，常见的转折推理：且出现might!

Text 3

In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.

在科学研究的理想状态下，关于世界的事实正在等待着那些客观的研究者来观察和搜集，研究者们会用科学的方法来进行他们的工作。但是在每天的科学实践中，发现通常遵循一条模糊和复杂的路径。我们的目标是做到客观，但是我们却不能逃离我们所处的独特的生活经验的环境。之前的知识和兴趣会影响我们所经历的，会影响我们对于

经验意义的思考，以及我们会采取的随后的行动。这里充满着误读，错误和自我欺骗的机会。

Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.

所以，对于发现的申明应该被当做是科学的原型。这与新近开发的采矿资源比较类似，他们都充满着可能性。但是将发现的申明变为一个成熟的发现是需要集体的审查和集体的接受。这个过程就配称之为“信用的过程”，通过这个过程一个单个研究者的“我”在这里就变成了这个社区中的任何人，任何地方和任何时间。客观的知识不应该是起点而是目标。

Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly

accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works it through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.

一但一个科学发现变成公开的，那么这个发现就获得了知识的信任。但是和开发采矿资源不一样的是，科学协会将控制接下来会发生的事情。在复杂的科研机构的社会结构中，研究者去做出发现;编辑和审稿者通过控制出版过程扮演着看门人的角色;其他的科学家使用新的发现来满足他们自己的目标;最后，公众(也包括其他科学家)接受到新的发现和可能相伴随的技术。当一个发现的声明最终通过了机构的审查，在有关所涉及到的共享的和抵触的信念之间的互动和冲突将把一个人的发现变为一个机构的可信的发现。

Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert

Azent-Gyorgyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.

在整个信任的过程中存在着两个悖论，第一：科学工作倾向于关注一些流行科学的某些方面，而这些方面又是被认为是不完全和不正确的。去复制和确认已经被人所知和所信的东西不会有多少回报。科学要做的是去探究新的东西而不是再次探究。不足为奇的是，新发表的重要的，有说服力发现和可信的发现将会被后来的研究者质疑，并带来潜在的修改甚至驳斥。第二个悖论是：新颖的东西本身就经常会招致怀疑。诺贝尔奖获得者，生理学家Albert Azent-Gyorgyi曾经将发现描述为：“观察每个人观察的，思考没有人想到的。”但是思考其他人没有想到的并且告诉其他人他们所遗漏的可能并不会改变这些人的观点。有时候，真正新颖的科学发现被人们所接受和认可将会花好多年的时间。

In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim – a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. “We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.” 最后，一个科学的发现获得了信任，这个过程是与哲学家Annette Baier所描述的心灵的共性的观点是一致的。“我们共同去推理，去质

疑，其修改并且完善各自的推理以及各自的推理概念。

文章解析和来源：

/group/physical_sciences/message/5041?threaded=1&var=1

这篇文章是对一本书Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic的书评，这本书在 2009年由牛津大学出版社出版。这篇文章的题目就是：The Evolution of Credibility

31. According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its

根据第一段，发现过程的特点是它的：

[A] uncertainty and complexity.

A.不确定性和复杂性

[B] misconception and deceptiveness.

B. 错误的概念和欺骗

[C] logicality and objectivity.

C.逻辑性和客观性

[D] systematicness and regularity.

D.系统性和常规性

解析：这是一道细节题：对应原文这一句：But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/3xhm.html