考研英語真題出處全文翻譯(持續更新中)

!感-杠-問? · 發表于 2012-9-19 00:05

本帖最后由 !感-杠-問? 于 2012-9-19 13:54 編輯

說明：
1、本部分目的是鼓勵各位自主翻譯全文，而不是參考各種權威教材的“翻譯”。
2、順序按時間由近到遠來翻譯。
3、我會盡量找到每篇考研語篇的出處。并分析考研語篇與原版之間的差別。
4、如果能找到出處的語篇，我只翻譯原版文章，考研語篇不再翻譯。
5、每篇文章，我都會對一些較難理解的熟詞，或者生詞進行英英注釋。
6、本人不是專業人士，譯文肯定有問題，望交流，望指正。
7、每篇文章，我會給出我認為作文中可以使用的，比較好的，比較地道的結構。推薦各位背誦記憶，并自己造句練習。
8、由于我現在還是大三，白天還有課要上。并且目前主要時間花在另一個帖子“考研英語詞匯解析及運用”上（我要盡量在暑假前把所有詞匯搞定），因此這個帖子的更新會比較慢。望見諒。

!感-杠-問? · 發表于 2012-9-19 00:06

2012 TEXT 1

原版地址：http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2061234,00.html，全文如下：

Herd Mentality

ByANNIE MURPHY PAUL | Saturday, Apr. 09, 2011

Comeon — everybody's doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and halfgoad, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good — drinking, drugs,casual sex. But in her new book, Join theClub, Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positiveforce through what she calls the social cure, in which organizations andofficials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve theirlives and possibly the world.

Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize and aMacArthur "genius" grant, offers a host of examples of the socialcure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program calledRage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, anHIV-prevention initiative known as loveLife recruits young people to promotesafe sex among their peers. And in Illinois, "table groups" — smallgatherings of believers who meet at a weekly potluck — are arranged by theWillow Creek megachurch as a way of deepening its members' religious devotion.

The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is aperceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many public-healthcampaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits,and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology. "Dareto be different, please don't smoke!" implores one billboard campaignaimed at reducing smoking among teenagers — teenagers,who crave nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly thatpublic-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled atapplying peer pressure.

But on the general effectiveness of the social cure,Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join theClub is filled with too much extraneous detail and not enough explorationof the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so potent. Themost glaring flaw of the social cure as it's presented here is that it doesn'twork very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze foundered once statefunding was cut. Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes insexual behavior is limited and mixed. And the Willow Creek church'stable-groups experiment was abandoned after two years.

There's no doubt that our peer groups exert enormousinfluence on our behavior. An emerging body of research (mentioned briefly byRosenberg) shows that positive health habits — as well as negative ones —spread through networks of friends via a phenomenon that epidemiologists callsocial contagion. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciouslyemulate the behavior we see every day.

Far less certain, however, is how successfullyexperts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activitiesin virtuous directions. It's like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakersin the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tacticnever really works. And that's the problem with a social cure engineered fromthe outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our ownfriends.

This article originally appeared in the April 4, 2011 issue ofTIME.

!感-杠-問? · 發表于 2012-9-19 00:09

2012 TEXT 1
原版地址：http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2061234,00.html，全文如下：
Herd Mentality
By ANNIE MURPHY PAUL | Saturday, Apr. 09, 2011

Come on — everybody's doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half goad, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good — drinking, drugs, 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 world.

Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize and a MacArthur "genius" grant, offers a host of examples 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. And in Illinois, "table groups" — small gatherings of believers who meet at a weekly potluck — are arranged by the Willow Creek megachurch as a way of deepening its members' religious devotion.

The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many public-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!" implores one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers — teenagers, who crave 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.

But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much extraneous detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so potent. 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 foundered once state funding was cut. Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes in sexual behavior is limited and mixed. And the Willow Creek church's table-groups experiment was abandoned after two years.

There's no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research (mentioned briefly by Rosenberg) shows that positive health habits — as well as negative ones — spread through networks of friends via a phenomenon that epidemiologists call social contagion. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously emulate the behavior we see every day.

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.

This article originally appeared in the April 4, 2011 issue of TIME.

!感-杠-問? · 發表于 2012-9-19 00:17

本帖最后由 !感-杠-問? 于 2012-9-19 00:23 編輯

翻譯原版文章如下（譯文版權由我所有，望交流，望指教）：
Herd Mentality
大眾心理
By ANNIE MURPHY PAUL | Saturday, Apr. 09, 2011
Come on — everybody's doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half goad, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good — drinking, drugs, 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 world.

“加入我們，不做非主流。”當聽到“同齡壓力”時，我們很可能就會想到這句密語——可以說是一種邀請，也可以說是一種威脅。常常這終究擺脫不了那些不良嗜好（酗酒、吸毒、亂性等）。然而，蒂娜·羅森堡（Tina Rosenberg）最近出版了一本新書《別怕CLUB》（Join the Club）。她在書中表示，同齡壓力也可能具有正面的作用。她將這種過程稱作群體自愈。在同齡壓力的影響下，群體行為可以幫助群體中的成員優化生活——甚至可以說是世界的未來。

Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize and a MacArthur "genius" grant, offers a host of examples 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. And in Illinois, "table groups" — small gatherings of believers who meet at a weekly potluck — are arranged by the Willow Creek megachurch as a way of deepening its members' religious devotion.

如今，羅森堡已是普利茲獎（Pulitzer Prize）和麥克阿瑟獎（MacArthur，又稱Genius Grant）的得主。她試圖給出一系列群體自愈的實例。比如在南卡羅來納州，就有一個ZF資助的禁煙項目“對煙氣繚繞說不”（Rage Against the Haze），他們就計劃利用群體行為來改變人們對于香煙的好感。又比如在南非，艾滋預防項目“珍愛生命”（LoveLife）雇用了一些青年在同齡人間普及健康性行為。而位于伊利諾斯州的柳溪大教堂（Willow Creek）則利用“桌友”（指每周聚餐的教友），來深化他們的宗教信仰。

The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many public-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!" implores one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers — teenagers, who crave nothing more thanfitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought totake a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure.

羅森堡是個視角敏銳的觀察家，她所提出的這個觀點也似乎很有市場。對于目前各種針對公共衛生的政治運動，她批評道：他們根本就沒有利用同齡壓力來倡導健康的生活習慣，相反在他們的言論中，違反心理學常識的例子比比皆是。她的這些批駁顯然言之在理。有個平面廣告竟然用“敢彰顯個性嗎！那就別吸煙了！”這樣的標語。他的想法很好，試圖引導青年減少煙量。但是考慮“青年”這個群體的特性了嗎？他們只想融入同齡群體！他卻讓他們“彰顯個性”。羅森堡就此指出，那些公共安全的倡導者應該尋求與廣告制作商的合作，畢竟他們熟悉并善用同齡壓力在青年群體中的影響力。

But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much extraneous detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so potent. 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 foundered once state funding was cut. Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes in sexual behavior is limited and mixed. And the Willow Creek church's table-groups experiment was abandoned after two years.

但是，羅森堡關于群體自愈的一般效果的表述，就沒那么有說服力了。在她的《別怕CLUB》書中，充斥了太多無關緊要的事例。她也沒有從社會學及生物學的角度，去論證同齡壓力的有效性。事實上，她所提出的群體自愈理論并非總是能夠長久地穩定運行，這也成為了這一理論的致命缺陷。“對煙氣繚繞說不”這個項目在ZF撤資以后就土崩瓦解了；“珍愛生命”對于性行為的持續糾正也是能力有限而須辯證待之；而柳溪大教堂的桌友聚會在兩年以后便無人問津了。

There's no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research (mentioned briefly by Rosenberg) shows that positive health habits — as well as negative ones — spread through networks of friends via a phenomenon that epidemiologists call social contagion. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously emulate the behavior we see every day.

當然，同齡人會極大程度上影響我們的行為，這是毋庸置疑的。一項最新的研究（羅森堡的書中也簡要提到這一研究）表明，健康的生活習慣會在朋友間傳播（陋習其實也如此）——源于傳播學家稱之為群體同化的現象。同齡壓力就是其中一種隱蔽的形式——我們每天都會不自覺地模仿他人的行為。
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.

專家及政客都試圖挑選一些道德高尚、舉止得體的人，并以他們為導向，影響同齡人的行為。遺憾的是，我們對于這種嘗試的效果卻知之甚少。這就像在學校里，老師讓那些搗蛋鬼坐到最后一排，然后給他們安排一個行為規范的同桌——但這種招數就從沒奏效過。這就是群體自愈選擇外部性的問題——現實總是物以類聚人以群分，學校也如此。

This article originally appeared in the April 4, 2011 issue of TIME.

!感-杠-問? · 發表于 2012-9-19 00:35

原版文章的部分詞匯注釋，如下：
goad noun [countable] something that forces someone to do something [from LDOCE5]
official noun [countable] someone who is in a position of authority in an organization [from LDOCE5]
recipient noun [countable] formal someone who receives something [from LDOCE5]
Pulitzer Prize The Pulitzer Prize is a U.S. award for achievements in newspaper and online journalism, literature and musical composition. [from WIKIPEDIA]
MacArthur Fellows Program The MacArthur Fellows Program or MacArthur Fellowship (nicknamed the Genius Grant) is an award given by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation each year to typically 20 to 40 United States citizens or residents, of any age and working in any field, who "show exceptional merit and promise for continued and enhanced creative work". [from WIKIPEDIA]
a (whole) host of people / things a large number of people or things [from LDOCE5]
in action someone or something that is in action is doing the job or activity they are trained or designed to do [from LDOCE5]
initiative noun [countable] an important new plan or process to achieve a particular aim or to solve a particular problem [from LDOCE5]
megachurch A megachurch is a church having 2,000 or more in average weekend attendance. [from WIKIPEDIA]
potluck noun [countable] American English a meal in which everyone who is invited brings something to eat [from LDOCE5]
perceptive adjective someone who is perceptive notices things quickly and understands situations, people’s feelings etc well - used to show approval [from LDOCE5]
spot-on adjective British English informal exactly right [from LDOCE5]
mobilize verb [transitive] to start to use the things or people you have available in order to achieve something [from LDOCE5]
implore verb [intransitive and transitive] formal to ask for something in an emotional way [= beg] [from LDOCE5]
billboard noun [countable] a large sign used for advertising [from LDOCE5]
crave verb [transitive] to have an extremely strong desire for something [from LDOCE5]
extraneous adjective formal not belonging to or directly related to a particular subject or problem [= irrelevant] [from LDOCE5]
founder verb [intransitive] formal to fail after a period of time because something has gone wrong [from LDOCE5]
epidemiology noun [uncountable] the study of way diseases spread, and how to control them [from LDOCE5]
epidemiology Epidemiology is the study of the patterns, causes, and effects of health and disease in defined populations. [from WIKIPEDIA]
contagion noun [singular] formal a feeling or attitude that spreads quickly between people or places [from LDOCE5]
emotional contagion (Redirected from Social contagion) Emotional contagion is the tendency to catch and feel emotions that are similar to and associated with those of others. [from WIKIPEDIA]
virtuous adjective formal behaving in a very honest and moral way [from LDOCE5]
break something ? up to separate something into several smaller parts [from LDOCE5]
engineer verb [transitive often passive] technical to design and plan the building of roads, bridges, machines, etc [from LDOCE5]

!感-杠-問? · 發表于 2012-9-19 08:53

考研閱讀版本，在原版基礎上的刪改，如下：

第一段
Come on — everybody's doing it.斜體改為正體。goad改為forcing。drinking, drugs, casual sex最后一個逗號改為and。her new book, Join the Club,的前一個逗號刪去。

第二段
the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize and a MacArthur "genius" grant中的and a MacArthur "genius" grant刪去。And in Illinois, "table groups" — small gatherings of believers who meet at a weekly potluck — are arranged by the Willow Creek megachurch as a way of deepening its members' religious devotion.刪去。

第三段
implores改為pleads。crave改為desire。

第四段
extraneous改為irrelevant。potent改為powerful。foundered改為failed。Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes in sexual behavior is limited and mixed.中的in sexual behavior刪去。And the Willow Creek church's table-groups experiment was abandoned after two years.刪去。

第五段
An emerging body of research (mentioned briefly by Rosenberg) shows that positive health habits — as well as negative ones — spread through networks of friends via a phenomenon that epidemiologists call social contagion.中的括號插入語刪去。a phenomenon that epidemiologists call social contagion改為social communication。emulate改為imitate。

第六段
無刪改

!感-杠-問? · 發表于 2012-9-19 13:26

原版文中較好的詞匯、結構，如下（建議鍛煉造句能力，運用到寫作中）：
herd mentality（大眾心理是一個論及現代年輕人時的話題類詞匯）
Come on — everybody’s doing it.（這已成為一種跟隨潮流的標志語）
peer pressure（與這個詞相關聯的還有另一個詞，peer acceptance，兩者經常可以一起討論）
sth. is what most of us think of when we do sth.（這一句式經常運用在駁論文的開頭，大部分認為的東西一般與文章論點相反）
lead to（表示原因、結果、時間上的先后等，在寫作時可以用一個非限定性定語從句，或分詞短語來表示結果等，以替代so that等，但語氣上比so that等弱得多）
offer a host of examples of sth.（注意搭配，用offer替換我們常用的give，用a host of替代常用的many或a lot of等）
in action（有purposely、deliberately的意思）
sponsor（相似意思的還有fund、finance等）
antismoking（用來替換actions against smoking，簡短而精煉）
promote（一個好詞，雖然不難，經常可以表示“使……好轉”一類的意思）
peer(s)（論及年輕人時的話題類詞匯）
believer（這種信仰不只是宗教的，也完全可以是其他的“堅信者”，如a believer of moral abstracts，甚至可以引申到更為廣義的“支持者”）
deepen（相似的還有strengthen、enhance、reinforce、intensify等，但意思也不完全不同，要注意區別，有的句子中的這些詞并不是可以隨便替換的）
devotion（有loyalty的意思）
promising（有hopeful、feasible的意思）
spot-on（替換right）
demonstrate（一般表示“政治性的示威或要求”）
flawed（相似還有defective等）
dare（可作行為動詞，也可作情態動詞，用法較多）
(be) aimed at（表示目的，在寫作時可以用一個非限定性定語從句，或分詞短語來表示目的，以替代in order to等）
do nothing more than sth.（注意盡管語法上說sth.是than的介詞賓語，than sth.是比較狀語，但這里sth.語意上其實是do的賓語。nothing more than只起強調作用，意思同only，但語氣更強）
fit in (with sb.)（相當于be accepted，語意上是被動，形式上是主動）
argue（提出觀點，表示“認為”，注意是肯定語氣。另外，所有觀點類的動詞，只能運用在引用他人觀點，而不是表達自己觀點。表達自己觀點的時候，直接說就可以，不必有任何的觀點類動詞引導）
convincingly（強化語氣的詞）
advocate（可以是動詞，也可以是名詞。動詞是觀點類動詞，名詞是觀點類名詞。）
take a page from sb.（表示“借鑒”）
be skilled at (doing) sth.
apply（意思很多，還包括各種application等詞組）
persuasive（很少見到肯定語氣，一般總是less persuasive，在駁論文中較多見）
be filled with（表示充滿，替代形如there are many等低層次句型）
exploration（有explanation、analysis的意思）
factor（表示“原因”的詞，相似的還有reason、impact、point等）
potent（替換powerful）
flaw（相似的還有defect、demerit、error、mistake、fault等，但在語氣上有較大差別）
work（有operate的意思）
founder（有be destroyed、be ruined、fail、collapse的意思）
evidence that ... is limited and mixed（that引導同位語從句。駁論句式）
there’s no doubt that ...（that引導同位語從句。立論句式）
exert enormous influence on sth. / sb.（注意搭配，用exert替換常用的have等，另外這里exert還可以用impose來替代，但語意上有區別，impose influence on sb.這種影響通常是后面的這個人不愿意的，或者說強加的影響）
emerging（有developing的意思）
an emerging body of research show that ...（that是賓語從句。立論句式）
brief(ly)（兩個意思，一、簡要，二、短暫）
as well as（一般作插入語，標點符號有3個種處理方式，一、左右兩邊破折號，二、左右兩邊逗號，三、左右兩邊沒標點。前兩種區別不大，最后一種一般as well as后面的東西很短）
social contagion（論及青年、奢侈品等社會話題中，可以使用的話題類詞匯）
We unconsciously emulate the behavior we see every day.（理論論據，可以背一下）
adj. + linking verb + that / wh- ...（倒裝句句式，很有氣勢）
pair sb. with sth.（相似的還有furnish、equip、arm等）
The tactic never really works.（一句短句。駁論句）
insist on (doing) sth.（其實不只是“堅持”的意思，而是更廣義的“愿意”或“自愿”或“想要”的意思，有be willing to do sth.的意思）

!感-杠-問? · 發表于 2012-9-21 17:05

本帖最后由 !感-杠-問? 于 2012-9-21 17:06 編輯

2012 TEXT 2
原版地址：
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/04/24/vermont_yankee_plants_owner_must_honor_its_own_promises/
全文如下：
GLOBE EDITORIAL
Vermont Yankee plant’s owner must honor its own promises
April 24, 2011

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 state’s stringent nuclear regulations.

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

The conflict in Vermont has been brewing since 2002, when the Louisiana-based corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor on the Connecticut River in Vernon, near the Massachusetts border. 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 the Vermont legislature’s approval. Then, too, the company went along.

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 leaking radioactive tritium, 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. And that was before the disaster in Japan rekindled popular concern over nuclear plants, especially older reactors like the one at Vermont Yankee, which is similar in design to those at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant.

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 murky; the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, but legal scholars say the 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.

The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so battered 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. Vowing 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 reviews the company’s application, it should keep in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.

? Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.

!感-杠-問? · 發表于 2012-9-21 17:09

考研閱讀版本，如下：

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 state’s strict nuclear regulations.

A DEAL is a deal中第一個DEAL改為小寫。stringent改為strict。

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.

in federal court中in后添入the。last-ditch改為desperate。

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.

The conflict in Vermont中in Vermont刪去。brewing改為surfacing。Louisiana-based刪去。on the Connecticut River in Vernon, near the Massachusetts border除in Vernon外刪去。to the Vermont legislature’s approval中the刪去。

EitherEntergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn’tforesee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partialcollapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the discovery of an underground pipesystem 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.

leaking radioactive tritium改為leakage。And that was before the disaster in Japan rekindled popular concern over nuclear plants, especially older reactors like the one at Vermont Yankee, which is similar in design to those at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant.刪去。

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 the 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.

The legal issues in the case are murky; the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, but legal scholars say the Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.中murky改為obscure，分號改為冒號，the Supreme Court前添入whereas，but刪去。

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 in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.

battered改為damaged。Vowing改為Pledging。the Nuclear Regulatory Commission后添入(NRC)。

!感-杠-問? · 發表于 2012-9-21 17:14

本帖最后由 !感-杠-問? 于 2012-9-22 14:28 編輯

翻譯原版文章如下（譯文版權由我所有，求交流，求糾正）：
GLOBE EDITORIAL
全球版社論
Vermont Yankee plant’s owner must honor its own promises
佛蒙特彥科核電站（Vermont Yankee）——誠實守信的君子？背信棄義的小人？
April 24, 2011

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 state’s stringent nuclear regulations.
人說人話——但安吉特（Entergy）卻說鬼話。安吉特是紐格蘭（New England）的主要能源供應企業。上周，其宣稱不再遵守佛蒙特州嚴格的核能限制，而此前該公司則一直承諾接受該州的這些規定。安吉特的這一言論隨即激起了巨大的轟動。

Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not: challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in federal court, as part of a last-ditch effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It’s a stunning move.
然而安吉特不但不知悔改，反而變本加厲、得寸進尺。該企業撕毀約定，將佛蒙特州的規定告到了聯邦法院，稱其違憲。當然，這種驚人之舉只能視作安吉特最后的垂死掙扎——他仍期冀繼續運營佛蒙特彥科核電站。

The conflict in Vermont has been brewing since 2002, when the Louisiana-based corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor on the Connecticut River in Vernon, near the Massachusetts border. 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 the Vermont legislature’s approval. Then, too, the company went along.
這場紛爭從2002年起就埋下了越演越烈的苗頭。當時，路易斯安那州的總公司買下了佛蒙特州僅有的一個破舊的核電廠。該廠位于佛蒙特州與馬塞諸塞州的邊界附近的維儂（Vernon），毗鄰肯奈克迪克特河（Connecticut River）。作為州政府在同意交易時的附加條件，安吉特同意2012年以后所有的運營行為都要經由州政府批準。在2006年，佛蒙特州更進一步要求，該廠營業執照的所有延期申請都必須提請州議會準許。當時，安吉特對此也并未提出任何異議。

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 leaking radioactive tritium, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management — epecially 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. And that was before the disaster in Japan rekindled popular concern over nuclear plants, especially older reactors like the one at Vermont Yankee, which is similar in design to those at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant.
安吉特可能就從沒真正想過遵守這些承諾——亦或是當時就壓根沒預料到之后所有災難性的意外事件。在2007年，冷卻塔局部坍塌。其后，又發現地下管線放射性氚泄漏，而公司事后又發表了關于管線誤導性的言論。這些無不引起民眾質疑：佛蒙特彥科核電站真的安全嗎？公司的管理真的可靠嗎？基于安吉特糟糕的管理情況，去年佛蒙特州的參議員以24票對6票決定，不再延長安吉特的營業執照有效期限。隨后沒多久的日本核泄漏丑聞，更是重新喚醒了人們對于核電站的擔憂。特別是那些陳舊的核反應堆——當然就包括佛蒙特彥科核電站，這些核反應堆在設計上和福島第一核電站（Fukushima Daiichi）的幾近無異，而后者如今已是一片狼藉。

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 murky; the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, but legal scholars say the 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.
但如今安吉特卻突然宣稱，其2002年與佛蒙特州訂立的協議無效。他的依據是2006年通過的一部新法，該法將核能項目的管理權只賦予給聯邦政府。然而，這一問題還真有些復雜，因為最高法院裁定州政府也有核能的部分管理權。有法學專家表示，此次安吉特的案子可能成為一個案例，來確定“部分”管理權的具體權限。畢竟如果每個州都有自己的核能管理規范的話，反倒要擔心這些規范太過凌亂無序。所有這些討論倒也要歸功于安吉特，假如他不食言的話，什么討論都沒了。

The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so battered 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. Vowing 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 reviews the company’s application, it should keep in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.
安吉特似乎之前已經覺得自己在佛蒙特州已名譽掃地，也就不怕破罐子破摔，和州政府對著干了。但其實，這對其還是有負面影響的。是公眾的信任賦予企業經營核電廠的權利。安吉特不是只有這一個核電廠，他在美國還有另外的11座，其中就包括普利茅斯（Plymouth）的皮爾格里姆核電站（Pilgrim Nuclear）。難道這11座也經得起“破摔”嗎？安吉特誓言絕對保證皮爾格里姆的安全運轉，且已向聯邦政府申請延長20年的經營權。然而，核能管理委員會在審議這次申請時，肯定會因佛門特州事件，而對這一承諾打上個大大的問號。

? Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.

		自動登錄	找回密碼
密碼			注冊

精品日本亚洲一区二区三区,伊人久久狼人色精品无码 ,日鲁夜鲁天天鲁视频,国产精品久久亚洲,秋霞理论理论福利院久久,国产日韩欧美视频一区二区三区,色九九,国产精品美女久久久久久免费 ,九九干,韩国精品一区二区三区

[閱讀] 考研英語真題出處全文翻譯(持續更新中)

NEW最新資料推薦