英二 真题 2002年 (完结)

Section I Use of English

---

Section II Reading Comprehension

Text 1

    If you intend using humor in your talk to make people smile, you must know how to identify shared experiences and problems. Your humor must be relevant to the audience and should help to show them that you are one of them or that you understand their situation and are in sympathy with their point of view. Depending on whom you are addressing, the problems will be different. If you are talking to a group of managers, you may refer to the disorganized methods of their secretaries; alternatively if you are addressing secretaries, you may want to comment on their disorganized bosses.

    Here is an example, which I heard at a nurses' convention, of a story which works well because the audience all shared the same view of doctors. A man arrives in heaven and is being shown around by St. Peter. He sees wonderful accommodations, beautiful gardens, sunny weather, and so on. Everyone is very peaceful, polite and friendly until, waiting in a line for lunch, the new arrival is suddenly pushed aside by a man in a white coat, who rushes to the head of the line, grabs his food and stomps over to a table by himself. "Who is that?" the new arrival asked St. Peter. "Oh, that's God," came the reply, "but sometimes he thinks he's a doctor.”

    If you are part of the group which you are addressing, you will be in a position to know the experiences and problems which are common to all of you and it'll be appropriate for you to make a passing remark about the inedible canteen food or the chairman's notorious bad taste in ties. With other audiences you mustn't attempt to cut in with humor as they will resent an outsider making disparaging remarks about their canteen or their chairman. You will be on safer ground if you stick to scapegoats like the Post Office or the telephone system.

    If you feel awkward being humorous, you must practice so that it becomes more natural. Include a few casual and apparently off-the-cuff remarks which you can deliver in a relaxed and unforced manner. Often it's the delivery which causes the audience to smile, so speak slowly and remember that a raised eyebrow or an unbelieving look may help to show that you are making a light-hearted remark.

    Look for the humor. It often comes from the unexpected. A twist on a familiar quote "If at first you don't succeed, give up" or a play on words or on a situation. Search for exaggeration and understatement. Look at your talk and pick out a few words or sentences which you can turn about and inject with humor.

---

如果你想在谈话中使用幽默来使人们微笑，你必须知道如何识别共同的经历和问题。你的幽默必须与观众相关，应该有助于向他们表明你是他们中的一员，或者你理解他们的处境，并同情他们的观点。不同的人遇到的问题也不同。如果你在和一群经理谈话，你可能会提到他们的秘书做事的杂乱无章;或者，如果你是对秘书讲话，你可能想评论一下他们杂乱无章的老板。

这里有一个例子，是我在一个护士大会上听到的，这个故事很有效，因为观众都对医生有相同的看法。一个人到了天堂，圣彼得带着他到处参观。他看到了美妙的住宿、美丽的花园、阳光明媚的天气等等。每个人都很平静、礼貌、友好，直到在排队买午餐时，新来的人突然被一个穿白大褂的人推到一边，他冲到队伍的最前面，抓起他的食物，自己跺着脚走到一张桌子前。“那是谁?”新来的人问圣彼得。“哦，那是上帝，”回答说，“但有时他以为自己是医生。”

如果你是你所演讲对象中的一员，你就处于一个了解你们所有人共同经历和问题的位置，而且你对食堂难吃的食物或董事长臭名昭著的领带品味稍加评论也是合适的。对于其他观众，你不能试图用幽默的方式插话，因为他们会讨厌一个局外人对他们的食堂或董事长发表轻蔑的言论。如果你坚持把邮局或电话系统作为替罪羊，你会更安全。

如果你觉得说幽默很尴尬，你必须练习使它变得更自然。包括一些随意的，显然是即兴的评论，你可以以一种轻松和不强迫的方式发表。通常是你的演讲方式让观众微笑，所以说得慢一点，记住扬起眉毛或露出不相信的表情都有助于表明你在说一句轻松的话。

寻找幽默。它往往来自于意想不到的事情。这是对一句熟悉的名言“如果一开始你没有成功，那就放弃”的扭曲，或者是对文字或情境的游戏。寻找夸张和低调的说法。看看你的谈话，挑出几个单词或句子，你可以把它们转化为幽默。

Text 2

    Since the dawn of human ingenuity, people have devised ever more cunning tools to cope with work that is dangerous, boring, burdensome, or just plain nasty. That compulsion has resulted in robotics—the science of conferring various human capabilities on machines. And if scientists have yet to create the mechanical version of science fiction, they have begun to come close.

    As a result, the modern world is increasingly populated by intelligent gizmos whose presence we barely notice but whose universal existence has removed much human labor. Our factories hum to the rhythm of robot assembly arms. Our banking is done at automated teller terminals that thank us with mechanical politeness for the transaction. Our subway trains are controlled by tireless robot-drivers. And thanks to the continual miniaturization of electronics and micro-mechanics, there are already robot systems that can perform some kinds of brain and bone surgery with submillimeter accuracy— far greater precision than highly skilled physicians can achieve with their hands alone.

    But if robots are to reach the next stage of laborsaving utility, they will have to operate with less human supervision and be able to make at least a few decisions for themselves—goals that pose a real challenge. "While we know how to tell a robot to handle a specific error," says Dave Lavery, manager of a robotics program at NASA, "we can't yet give a robot enough "common sense' to reliably interact with a dynamic world."

    Indeed the quest for true artificial intelligence has produced very mixed results. Despite a spell of initial optimism in the 1960s and 1970s when it appeared that transistor circuits and microprocessors might be able to copy the action of the human brain by the year 2010, researchers lately have begun to extend that forecast by decades if not centuries.

    What they found, in attempting to model thought, is that the human brain's roughly one hundred billion nerve cells are much more talented—and human perception far more complicated—than previously imagined. They have built robots that can recognize the error of a machine panel by a fraction of a millimeter in a controlled factory environment. But the human mind can glimpse a rapidly changing scene and immediately disregard the 98 percent that is irrelevant, instantaneously focusing on the monkey at the side of a winding forest road or the single suspicious face in a big crowd. The most advanced computer systems on Earth can't approach that kind of ability, and neuroscientists still don’t know quite how we do it.

---

自从人类有了创造力以来，人们就发明了更巧妙的工具来应付危险的、无聊的、繁重的或仅仅是讨厌的工作。这种强迫导致了机器人——赋予机器各种人类能力的科学。如果科学家们还没有创造出机械版的科幻小说，他们已经开始接近了。

因此，现代世界越来越多地充斥着智能小发明，我们很少注意到它们的存在，但它们的普遍存在减少了许多人类劳动。我们的工厂里回荡着机器人装配臂的节奏。我们的银行业务是在自动柜员机完成的，它们会以机械的礼貌感谢我们的交易。我们的地铁由不知疲倦的机器人司机控制。由于电子和微观力学的不断小型化，已经有机器人系统可以以亚毫米的精度进行某些脑部和骨骼手术，这比技术高超的医生仅靠双手所能达到的精度要高得多。

但是，如果机器人要达到节省人力的下一个阶段，它们将不得不在更少的人类监督下操作，并且至少能够自己做出一些决定——这些目标构成了真正的挑战。“虽然我们知道如何告诉机器人处理特定的错误，”NASA机器人项目经理戴夫·拉弗里(Dave Lavery)说，“但我们还不能给机器人足够的‘常识’来可靠地与动态世界互动。”

事实上，对真正人工智能的探索产生了非常复杂的结果。尽管在20世纪60年代和70年代，当晶体管电路和微处理器似乎能够在2010年复制人类大脑的活动时，人们曾有过一段乐观的时期，但最近研究人员开始将这一预测延长几十年，甚至几个世纪。

他们在试图模拟思维时发现，人类大脑中大约1000亿个神经细胞比以前想象的要聪明得多，人类的感知也要复杂得多。他们制造的机器人可以在受控的工厂环境中识别机器面板的误差，误差不到一毫米。但是人类的大脑可以瞥见一个快速变化的场景，并立即忽略98%的不相关内容，立即聚焦在蜿蜒的森林道路旁的猴子或人群中一张可疑的脸。地球上最先进的计算机系统无法达到这种能力，神经科学家仍然不知道我们是如何做到的。

Text 3

    Could the bad old days of economic decline be about to return? Since OPEC agreed to supply-cuts in March, the price of crude oil has jumped to almost $26 a barrel, up from less than $10 last December. This near-tripling of oil prices calls up scary memories of the 1973 oil shock, when prices quadrupled, and 1979-1980, when they also almost tripled. Both previous shocks resulted in double-digit inflation and global economic decline. So where are the headlines warning of gloom and doom this time?

    The oil price was given another push up this week when Iraq suspended oil exports. Strengthening economic growth, at the same time as winter grips the northern hemisphere, could push the price higher still in the short term.

    Yet there are good reasons to expect the economic consequences now to be less severe than in the 1970s. In most countries the cost of crude oil now accounts for a smaller share of the price of petrol than it did in the 1970s. In Europe, taxes account for up to four-fifths of the retail price, so even quite big changes in the price of crude have a more muted effect on pump prices than in the past.

    Rich economies are also less dependent on oil than they were, and so less sensitive to swings in the oil price. Energy conservation, a shift to other fuels and a decline in the importance of heavy, energy-intensive industries have reduced oil consumption. Software, consultancy and mobile telephones use far less oil than steel or car production. For each dollar of GDP (in constant prices) rich economies now use nearly 50% less oil than in 1973. The OECD estimates in its latest Economic Outlook that, if oil prices averaged $22 a barrel for a full year, compared with $13 in 1998, this would increase the oil import bill in rich economies by only 0.25-0.5% of GDP. That is less than one-quarter of the income loss in 1974 or 1980. On the other hand, oil-importing emerging economies-to which heavy industry has shifted—have become more energy-intensive, and so could be more seriously squeezed.

    One more reason not to lose sleep over the rise in oil prices is that, unlike the rises in the 1970s, it has not occurred against the background of general commodity-price inflation and global excess demand. A sizable portion of the world is only just emerging from economic decline. The Economist's commodity price index is broadly unchanging from a year ago. In 1973 commodity prices jumped by 70%, and in 1979 by almost 30%.

---

经济衰退的糟糕日子是否即将重现?自欧佩克3月份同意减产以来，原油价格已从去年12月的不到10美元一桶跃升至近26美元一桶。近三倍的油价让人想起1973年的石油危机，当时油价翻了四倍，1979年至1980年，油价也几乎翻了三倍。前两次冲击都导致了两位数的通胀和全球经济衰退。那么，这一次警告悲观和厄运的头条在哪里呢?

本周，当伊拉克暂停石油出口时，油价再次上涨。经济增长的加强，以及北半球冬季的到来，可能会在短期内进一步推高油价。

然而，我们有充分的理由预计，目前的经济后果不会像上世纪70年代那么严重。在大多数国家，原油价格在汽油价格中所占的份额比上世纪70年代要小。在欧洲，税收占到零售价格的五分之四，所以即使原油价格有很大的变化，对汽油零售价的影响也比过去要小得多。

富裕经济体对石油的依赖也比过去减少了，因此对油价波动也不那么敏感。节约能源、改用其他燃料以及能源密集型重工业的重要性下降，都减少了石油消费。软件、咨询和移动电话消耗的石油远低于钢铁或汽车生产。发达国家的每一美元GDP(按不变价格计算)的石油消耗量比1973年减少了近50%。经合组织在其最新一期的《经济展望》中估计，如果全年平均油价为22美元/桶，而1998年为13美元/桶，那么富裕经济体的石油进口支出只会增加GDP的0.25-0.5%。这还不到1974年或1980年收入损失的四分之一。另一方面，石油进口的新兴经济体——重工业已经转向——变得更加能源密集型，因此可能会受到更严重的挤压。

不要因为油价上涨而失眠的另一个原因是，与上世纪70年代的上涨不同，这次油价上涨并没有发生在大宗商品价格普遍上涨和全球需求过剩的背景下。世界上相当大一部分地区刚刚摆脱经济衰退。《经济学人》的商品价格指数与一年前相比基本没有变化。1973年商品价格上涨了70%，1979年几乎上涨了30%。

Text 4

    The Supreme Court's decisions on physician-assisted suicide carry important implications for how medicine seeks to relieve dying patients of pain and suffering.

    Although it ruled that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide, the Court in effect supported the medical principle of "double effect", a centuries-old moral principle holding that an action having two effects—a good one that is intended and a harmful one that is foreseen—is permissible if the actor intends only the good effect.

    Doctors have used that principle in recent years to justify using high doses of morphine to control terminally ill patients'pain, even though increasing dosages will eventually kill the patient.

    Nancy Dubler, director of Montefiore Medical Center, contends that the principle will shield doctors who "until now have very, very strongly insisted that they could not give patients sufficient medication to control their pain if that might hasten death".

    George Annas, chair of the health law department at Boston University, maintains that, as long as a doctor prescribes a drug for a legitimate medical purpose, the doctor has done nothing illegal even if the patient uses the drug to hasten death. "It's like surgery," he says. "We don't call those deaths homicides because the doctors didn't intend to kill their patients, although they risked their death. If you're a physician, you can risk your patient's suicide as long as you don't intend their suicide."

    On another level, many in the medical community acknowledge that the assisted-suicide debate has been fueled in part by the despair of patients for whom modern medicine has prolonged the physical agony of dying.

    Just three weeks before the Court's ruling on physician-assisted suicide, the National Academy of Science (NAS) released a two-volume report, Approaching Death: Improving Care at the End of Life. It identifies the undertreatment of pain and the aggressive use of "ineffectual and forced medical procedures that may prolong and even dishonor the period of dying" as the twin problems of end-of-life care.

    The profession is taking steps to require young doctors to train in hospices, to test knowledge of aggressive pain management therapies, to develop a Medicare billing code for hospital-based care, and to develop new standards for assessing and treating pain at the end of life.

    Annas says lawyers can play a key role in insisting that these well-meaning medical initiatives translate into better care. "Large numbers of physicians seem unconcerned with the pain their patients are needlessly and predictably suffering", to the extent that it constitutes "systematic patient abuse". He says medical licensing boards "must make it clear...that painful deaths are presumptively ones that are incompetently managed and should result in license suspension".

---

最高法院关于医生协助自杀的裁决对医学如何寻求减轻垂死病人的痛苦和折磨具有重要意义。

尽管它裁定医生协助自杀没有宪法权利，但法院实际上支持了“双重效果”的医学原则，这是一个有几个世纪历史的道德原则，认为一个行为有两种效果——一个是预期中的好的效果，另一个是预期中的有害的效果——如果行为人只打算获得好的效果，则是允许的。

近年来，医生们利用这一原则来证明使用大剂量吗啡来控制绝症患者的疼痛是合理的，即使增加剂量最终会杀死病人。

蒙特菲奥里医疗中心(Montefiore Medical Center)主任南希•杜伯勒(Nancy Dubler)认为，这一原则将保护那些“到目前为止一直非常非常坚决地认为，如果可能加速死亡，他们就不能给病人足够的药物来控制疼痛”的医生。

波士顿大学(Boston University)卫生法律系主任乔治•安纳斯(George Annas)坚持认为，只要医生出于合法的医疗目的开了一种药，即使病人使用这种药加速了死亡，医生也没有做任何违法的事情。“这就像做手术，”他说。“我们不称这些死亡为他杀，因为医生并没有打算杀死他们的病人，尽管他们冒着死亡的危险。如果你是一名医生，你可以冒着病人自杀的风险，只要你不打算让他们自杀。”

在另一个层面上，医学界的许多人承认，协助自杀的争论在一定程度上是由于病人的绝望，对他们来说，现代医学延长了死亡的身体痛苦。

就在最高法院对医生协助自杀做出裁决的三周前，美国国家科学院(NAS)发布了一份两卷本的报告，《接近死亡:改善生命末期的护理》。报告指出，对疼痛的治疗不足和积极使用“无效和强制的医疗程序，可能会延长甚至羞辱死亡时期”是临终关怀的两个问题。

该行业正在采取措施，要求年轻医生在临终关怀院接受培训，测试积极的疼痛管理疗法的知识，为医院护理制定医疗保险账单代码，并制定评估和治疗临终疼痛的新标准。

安纳斯说，律师可以发挥关键作用，坚持将这些善意的医疗举措转化为更好的医疗服务。“大量的医生似乎不关心他们的病人所遭受的不必要的、可预见的痛苦”，以至于这构成了“系统性的病人虐待”。他说，医疗执照委员会“必须明确……这种痛苦的死亡推定是由于管理不善而导致的，应被吊销执照"。

---

Part B

Part B

    Almost all our major problems involve human behavior, and they cannot be solved by physical and biological technology alone. What is needed is a technology of behavior, but we have been slow to develop the science from which such a technology might be drawn. (41) One difficulty is that almost all of what is called behavioral science continues to trace behavior to states of mind, feelings, traits of character, human nature, and so on. Physics and biology once followed similar practices and advanced only when they discarded them. (42) The behavioral sciences have been slow to change partly because the explanatory items often seem to be directly observed and partly because other kinds of explanations have been hard to find. The environment is obviously important, but its role has remained obscure. It does not push or pull, it selects, and this function is difficult to discover and analyze. (43) The role of natural selection in evolution was formulated only a little more than a hundred years ago. and the selective role of the environment in shaping and maintaining the behavior of the individual is only beginning to be recognized and studied. As the interaction between organism and environment has come to be understood, however, effects once assigned to states of mind, feelings, and traits are beginning to be traced to accessible conditions, and a technology of behavior may therefore become available. It will not solve our problems, however, until it replaces traditional prescientific views, and these are strongly entrenched. Freedom and dignity illustrate the difficulty. (44) They are the possessions of the autonomous (self-governing) man of traditional theory, and they are essential to practices in which a person is held responsible for his conduct and given credit for his achievements. A scientific analysis shifts both the responsibility and the achievement to the environment. It also raises questions concerning "values". Who will use a technology and to what ends? (45) Until these issues are resolved, a technology of behavior will continue to be rejected, and with it possibly the only way to solve our problems.

---

几乎我们所有的主要问题都涉及到人类行为，它们不能仅靠物理和生物技术来解决。我们需要的是一种行为的技术，但我们在发展可以从中得出这种技术的科学方面一直进展缓慢。(41)一个困难是，几乎所有所谓的行为科学都继续将行为追溯到心理状态、感情、性格特征、人性等等。物理学和生物学曾经遵循类似的做法，只有在抛弃它们时才会进步。(42)行为科学变化缓慢，部分原因是解释性的项目似乎经常是直接观察到的，部分原因是其他类型的解释一直很难找到。环境显然很重要，但它的作用却一直很模糊。它不推也不拉，而是选择，这个功能很难发现和分析。自然选择在进化中的作用是在一百多年前才提出的。环境在塑造和维持个人行为方面的选择作用才刚刚开始被认识和研究。然而，随着生物体和环境之间的相互作用逐渐被理解，曾经被认为是精神状态、感觉和特征的影响开始被追溯到可获得的条件，一种行为技术可能因此变得可行。然而，它不能解决我们的问题，除非它取代传统的科学前观点，而这些观点是根深蒂固的。自由和尊严说明了困难。它们是传统理论中自主的人的财产，对于一个人对他的行为负责并因他的成就而得到赞扬的实践来说，它们是必不可少的。科学的分析把责任和成就都推给了环境。它还提出了有关“价值观”的问题。谁会使用技术，目的是什么?在这些问题得到解决之前，研究行为的技术将继续遭到拒绝，解决我们问题的唯一方法可能也将继续遭到拒绝。