English improvement of IT Test（2012）

Section I        Use of English

        The ethical[道德的] judgments of the Supreme Court justices have become an important issue recently. The court cannot maintain its legitimacy【合法性，合理性】 as guardian of the rule of law when justices behave like politicians. Yet, in several instances, justices acted in ways that weakened the court's reputation for being independent and impartial【公平的，公正的；不偏不倚的】.

         Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, appeared at political events. That kind of activity makes it less likely that the court's decisions will be accepted as impartial judgments. Part of the problem is that the justices are not bound by an ethics code. At the very least, the court should make itself subject to the code of conduct that applies to the rest of the federal judiciary[司法部].

        This and other similar cases raise the question of whether there is still a line between the court and politics.

        The framers【制宪者】 of the Constitution envisioned【预期】 law as having authority apart from politics. They gave justices【法官】 permanent positions so they would be free to upset those in power and have no need to cultivate political support. Our legal system was designed to set law apart from pilitics precisely because they are so closely tied.

        Constitutional law is political because it results from choices rooted in fundamental social concepts like liberty and property. When the court deals with social policy decisions, the law it shapes is inescapably【 逃不掉地】 political which is why decisions split along ideological【思想体系的，意识形态的】 lines are so easily dismissed as unjust.

        The justices must address doubts about the court's legitimacy by making themselves accountable【负有责任的，应作解释的；可理解的】 to the code of conduct. That would make their rulings more likely to be seen as sepatate from politics and, as a result, convincing as law.

翻译：

        最近，最高法院法官的道德判断成为一个重要问题。如果法官们表现得像政客一样，法院就无法维持作为法治守护者的合法性。然而，在一些情况下，法官们的行为削弱了最高法院独立和公正的声誉。

        例如，大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚(Antonin Scalia)出席了政治活动。这种行为使得法院的判决不太可能被视为公正的判决。部分问题在于法官们不受道德准则的约束。至少，法院应该让自己服从于适用于联邦司法系统其他部门的行为准则。

        这个和其他类似的案件提出了这样一个问题:法院和政治之间是否还有界线?

        宪法的制定者设想法律具有政治之外的权威。他们给法官提供了永久职位，这样他们就可以自由地颠覆当权者，而无需培养政治支持。我们的法律体系旨在将法律与政治区分开来，因为它们是如此紧密地联系在一起。

        宪法是政治性的，因为它是植根于自由和财产等基本社会概念的选择的结果。当法院处理社会政策决定时，它所制定的法律不可避免地是政治性的，这就是为什么根据意识形态的不同而做出的决定很容易被认为是不公正的。

        法官们必须通过让自己对行为准则负责来解决对法院合法性的质疑。这将使他们的裁决更有可能被视为独立于政治，并因此成为令人信服的法律。

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【同辈压力】. It usually leads to no good——drinking, drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the Club, Tina Rosenberg contends【声称】 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【领受者】of a Pulitzer Prize, offers a host of examples of the social cure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored【赞助】 antismoking【反对吸烟的】 program called Rage Against the Haze【烟雾】 sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative【倡议】 known as loveLife recruits【征募】 young people to promote safe sex among their peers.

        The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive【有洞察力的】 observer. Her critique【评论文章】 of the lameness【残废】 of many public-health campaigns is spot-on【准确的】:they fail to mobilize【组织】 peer pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate【证明】 a seriously flawed【有瑕疵的】 understanding of psychology【 心理学】. "Dare to be different, please don't smoke!" pleads【极力为……辩护】 one billboard【宣传】 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 killed 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 irrelevant【不相干的】 detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring【 耀眼的】 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 noce state funding was cut. Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.

        There's no doubt that our peer groups exert【运用】 enormous influence on our behaviour. 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【不易察觉的】 form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate【模仿】 the behaviour we see every day.

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

21. According to  the first Paragraph, peer pressure often emerges as ?

[A] a supplement to the social cure.

[B] a stimulus【刺激】 to group dynamics

[C] an obstacle to social progress

[D] a cause of undesirable behaviors.

22 Rosenberg holds that public-health advocates should ?

[A] recruit【招募】 professional advertisers.

[B] learn from advertisers' experience

[C] stay away from commercial advertisers.

[D] recognize the limitations of advertisements.

23 In the author's view, Rosenberg's book fails to ?

[A] adequately probe social and biological factors.

[B] effectively evade【规避】 the flaws of the social cure

[C] illustrate【举例说明】 the functions of state funding.

[D] produce a long-lasting social effect

24. Para 5 shows that our imitation of behaviors ?

[A] is harmful to our networks of friends

[B] will mislead behavioral studies

[C] occurs without our realizing it

[D] can produce negative health habits

[25] The author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect peer pressure is ?

[A] harmful

[B] desirable

[C] profound【深刻的】

[D] questionable

翻译：

        来吧——每个人都在这么做。当我们听到“同伴压力”这个词时，大多数人都会想到这种半是邀请，半是强迫的低语。它通常不会带来什么好处——饮酒、吸毒和随意性行为。但蒂娜·罗森伯格(Tina Rosenberg)在她的新书《加入俱乐部》(Join the Club)中主张，通过她所谓的“社会治愈”，同侪压力也可以成为一种积极的力量。在“社会治愈”中，组织和官员利用群体动力的力量，帮助个人改善他们的生活，甚至改善世界。

        普利策奖得主罗森博格列举了一系列社会治疗的实例:在南卡罗来纳州，一个由国家资助的反吸烟项目“愤怒对抗阴霾”(Rage Against the Haze)旨在让香烟变得不酷。在南非，一个名为“爱的生命”的艾滋病预防组织招募年轻人，在他们的同龄人中推广安全性行为。

        这个想法似乎很有希望，罗森博格是一个敏锐的观察者。她对许多公共卫生运动的不足之处的批评非常到位:它们未能动员健康习惯的同伴压力，而且它们表明对心理学的理解存在严重缺陷。“敢于与众不同，请不要吸烟!”一个旨在减少青少年吸烟的广告牌上这样写道。罗森博格令人信服地指出，公共卫生倡导者应该向广告商学习，他们在施加同辈压力时被扼杀了。

        但在社会治疗的总体效果方面，罗森博格则不那么有说服力。《加入俱乐部》充满了太多无关的细节，而对同龄人压力如此强大的社会和生物因素的探索却不够。正如这里所展示的，社会疗法最明显的缺陷是它不能长期有效。国家拨款被削减后，《愤怒的雾霾》失败了。lovellife项目能产生持久变化的证据是有限的和混杂的。

        毫无疑问，我们的同伴群体对我们的行为有着巨大的影响。越来越多的研究表明，无论是积极的健康习惯还是消极的健康习惯，都可以通过社交网络在朋友圈中传播。这是一种微妙的同伴压力:我们无意识地模仿我们每天看到的行为。

        然而，专家和官僚们如何成功地选择我们的同辈群体，并引导他们的活动向良性方向发展，则是不太确定的。这就像老师把后排的捣乱分子和表现更好的同学配对，把他们分开。这种策略从来没有真正奏效过。这就是外部社会疗法的问题所在:在现实世界中，就像在学校里一样，我们坚持选择自己的朋友。

近朱者赤，近墨者黑

        Text 2

        A deal is a deal——except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked【激起】 justified【有正当理由的】 outrage【愤慨】 in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on【违背】 a longstanding【长期存在的】 commitment to abide【忍受】 by the state's strict nuclear regulations【规则】.

        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【拼命的】 effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant【工厂】 running. It's a stunning【令人震惊的】 move.

        The conflict has been surfacing【公开化】 since 2002, when the corporation【公司】 bought Vermont's only nuclear power plant, an aging【变旧的】 reactor【反应堆】 in Vernon. As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators【监管者】 to operate past 2002. 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【部分的】 collapse【倒塌】 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【使发怒】 by Entergy's behaviour, the Vermont Senate【参议院】 voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.

        Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation【法律】, and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues. The legal issues in the case are obscure【朦胧的】: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, legal scholars【法律学者】 say that Vermont case will offer a  precedent-setting【开先例的】  test of how far those powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork【拼缝的】 regulations【规则】 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 damaged that it has noting 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.

 26. The phrase "reneging on" (Para 1.) is closest in meaning to ?

[A] condemning[谴责]

[B] reaffirming

[C] dishonoring

[D]securing

27. By entering into the 2002 agreement, Entergy intended to ?

[A] obtain protection from Vermont regulators

[B] seek favor from the federal legislature

[C] acquire an extension of its business license

[D] get permission to purchase a power plant

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

[A] managerial practices

[B] technical innovativeness

[C] financial goals

[D] business vision

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

[A] Entergy's capacity to fulfill all its promises

[B] the nature of state's patchwork regulations

[C] the federal authority over nuclear issues.

[D] the limits of states' power over nuclear issues

30. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that ?

[A] Entergy's business elsewhere might be affected[影响]

[B] the authority of the NRC will be defied

[C] Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application

[D] Vermont's reputation might be damaged

翻译：

        交易就是交易——显然，Entergy牵涉其中除外。该公司是新英格兰地区的主要能源供应商，上周宣布违背遵守该州严格核规定的长期承诺时，在佛蒙特州引发了众怒。

        相反，该公司却做了它长期以来承诺不会做的事情:在联邦法院挑战佛蒙特州法规的合宪性，这是它为保持佛蒙特州扬基核电站运行而做出的孤注一搏的一部分。这是一个惊人的举动。

        自2002年该公司买下佛蒙特州唯一的核电站——位于弗农的一座老化的反应堆——以来，冲突就开始浮出水面。作为获得州政府批准的条件之一，该公司同意向州政府监管机构申请在2002年以后运营的许可。2006年,国家更进一步,要求工厂的许可的任何扩展的佛蒙特州立法机构的批准。然后，公司也同意了。

        要么是Entergy从未真正打算遵守这些承诺，要么就是它根本没有预见到接下来会发生什么。一系列事故，包括2007年一座冷却塔的部分倒塌，以及发现一个地下管道系统泄漏，让人们对佛蒙特州扬基核电站的安全性和Entergy公司的管理提出了严重质疑——尤其是在该公司就管道发表了误导性声明之后。被Entergy的行为激怒的佛蒙特州参议院去年以26票对4票否决了延期。

        现在，该公司突然声称，由于2006年的立法，2002年的协议无效，而且只有联邦政府对核问题有监管权力。这一案件中的法律问题尚不明朗:尽管最高法院已经裁定各州对核能有一定的监管权力，但法律学者表示，佛蒙特州的案件将为这些权力的延伸提供一个先例。当然，如果每个州都制定自己的规则，就会产生拼凑起来的法规，对此的担忧不无道理。但如果Entergy信守诺言，这场争论就无关紧要了。

        该公司似乎已经得出结论，它在佛蒙特州的声誉已经严重受损，与该州开战已经没有什么可损失的了。但这应该是有后果的。核电站的运营许可是一种公众信任。Entergy在美国运营着其他11个反应堆，包括普利茅斯的清教徒核电站。为了保证Pilgrim的安全运营，该公司已经向联邦政府申请再开放20年。但是当核管理委员会(NRC)审查该公司的申请时，它应该记住Entergy的承诺值多少钱。

Text 3

        In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective【客观的】 researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous【模糊不清的】 and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the  context of our unique life experiences. Prior【先进的】 knowledge and interests influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent【随后的】 actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation【误解】, error, and self-deception【欺骗】 abound【大量存在】.

        Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience【原始科学】. Similar to newly staked mining claims【采矿主张】, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny【仔细观察】 and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility【可靠性】 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.

        Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discovery receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structual 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 its way through the community, the interaction and confrontation【对抗】 between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual's discovery claim into the community's credible discovery.

        Two paradioxes exist throughout【贯穿整个时期】 this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing【流行的】 knowledge that is viewed as  incomplete【不完全的】 or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication【复制】 and confirmation【确认】 of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisely, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification【修改】 or refutation【驳斥】 by future researchers. Second, novelty【新颖】 itself frequently provokes 【激起】disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Szent-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.

        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 concceptions of reason."

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

[A] uncertainty and complexity.

[B] misconception[误解] and deceptiveness.

[C] logicality and objectivity.[逻辑性和客观性。]

[D] systematicness and regularity.[系统性和规律性。]

32. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires ?

[A] strict inspection.[严格检查。]

[B] shared efforts.[共同的努力。]

[C] individual wisdom.[个人的智慧。]

[D] persistent innovation.[持续的创新。]

33. Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it ?

[A] has attracted the attention of the general public.

[B] has been examined by the scientific community.

[C] has received recognition from editors and reviewers.

[D] has been frequently quoted bu peer scientists.

34. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi world most likely agree that?

[A] scientific claims will survive challenges.

[B] discoveries today inspire future research

[C] efforts to make discoveries are justified[合理的]

[D] scientific work calls for a critical mind.

35.Which of the following would be the best title of the test?

[A] Noverty as an Engine of Scientific Development

[B] Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery.

[C] Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.

[D] Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science.

翻译：

        在科学是如何开展的理想化版本中，关于世界的事实正等待着客观的研究者们用科学的方法去观察和收集。但在日常的科学实践中，发现往往遵循一个模糊和复杂的路线。我们的目标是客观，但我们不能逃离我们独特的生活经历的背景。先验知识和兴趣影响我们的经验，我们认为我们的经验意味着什么，以及我们采取的后续行动。误解、错误和自欺欺人的机会比比皆是。

        因此，发现主张应该被认为是原始科学。类似于新近入股的矿业权益，它们充满了潜力。但要将一项发现声明转变为一项成熟的发现，需要集体审查和接受。这是一个可信的过程，通过这个过程，个人研究者的“我”，在这里，现在变成了社区的“任何人”，“任何地方”，“任何时间”。客观的知识是目标，而不是起点。

        一旦一项发现被公开，这项发现就会得到智力上的认可。但是，与采矿权不同的是，社区将控制接下来发生的事情。在科学界复杂的社会结构中，研究人员做出发现;编辑和审稿人通过控制出版过程扮演着看门人的角色;其他科学家利用这一新发现来达到自己的目的;最后，公众(包括其他科学家)接受新发现和可能伴随的技术。当一项发现声明在社区中传播时，有关所涉及的科学和技术的共同或相互竞争的信念之间的互动和对抗，将个人的发现声明转化为社区的可信发现。

        在整个可信度过程中存在两个悖论。首先，科学工作倾向于关注流行知识的某些方面，这些方面被认为是不完整或不正确的。重复和确认已经知道和相信的东西是没有什么回报的。目标是新搜索，而不是研究。不是惊喜,新公布的发现索赔和可靠的发现似乎是重要和令人信服的永远是开放的挑战和潜在的未来研究人员修改或驳斥。第二，新奇本身往往会引起怀疑。诺贝尔奖获得者、生理学家艾伯特·森特-格尔吉曾将发现描述为“看到了每个人都看到的东西，思考没人想过的东西。”但是，想别人没有想过的，告诉别人他们错过了什么，可能不会改变他们的观点。有时候，真正新颖的发现需要数年的时间才能被接受和欣赏。

        最终，一项发现的可信度“发生了”——这一过程与哲学家安妮特·拜尔(Annette Baier)所描述的“心灵的共有物”(commons of the mind)是一致的。“我们一起推理，挑战，修改，完善彼此的推理和彼此的理性概念。”

Text 4

        If the trade unionist Jimmy Hoffa were alive today, he would probably represent civil servants. When Hoffa's Teamsters【卡车驾驶员】 were in their prime【壮年时期】 in 1960, only one in ten American government workers belonged to a union; now 36% do. In 2009 the number of unionists in America's public sector passed that of their fellow members in the private sector. In Britain, more than half of public-sector workers but only about 15% of private-sector ones are unionized.

        There are three reasons for the public-sector unions' thriving【 欣欣向荣的】. First, they can shut things down without suffering much in the way of consequences【后果】. Second, they are mostly bright and well-educated. A quarter of America's public sector workers have a university degree. Third, they now dominate【统治】 left-of-centre publics. Some of their ties go back a long way. Britain's Labor Party, as its name implies, has long been associated with trade unionism. Its current leader, Ed Miliband, owes his position to votes from public-sector unions.

        At the state level their influence can be even more fearsome【可怕的】. Mark Baldassare of the Public Policy Institute of California points out that much of the state's budget is patrolled【巡逻】 by unions. The teachers' unions keep an eye on schools, the CCPOA on prisons and a variety of labor groups on health care.

        In many rich countries average wages in the state sector are higher than in the private one. But the real gains come in benefits and work practices. Politicians have repeatedly "backloaded" public-sector pay deals, keeping the pay increases modest【适中的】 but adding to holidays and especially pensions【养老金】 that are already generous.

        Reform has been vigorously【精神旺盛地】 opposed, perhaps most notoriously【众所周知地】 in education, where charpter【特许】 schools, academies and merit【优秀品质】 pay【绩效工资】 all faced drawn-out【延长的】 battles. Even thought there is plenty of evidence that the quality of the teachers is the most important variable, teachers' unions have fought against getting rid of bad ones and promoting good ones.

        As the cost of everyone else has become clearer, politicians have begun to clamp down【施加压力】. In Wisconsin the unions have rallied【召集】 thousands of supporters against Scott Walker, the hardline【强硬的】 Republican governor. But many within the public sector suffer under the current system, too.

        John Donahue at Harvard's Kennedy School points out that the norms【标准】 of culture in Western civil services suit those who want to stay put but is  bad for high achievers. The only American public-sector workers who earn well above 250,000 a year are university sports coaches and the president of the United States. Bankers' fat pay packets have attracted much criticism, but a public-sector system that does not reward high achievers may be a much bigger problem for America.

翻译：

        如果工会成员吉米·霍法(Jimmy Hoffa)今天还活着，他可能会代表公务员。1960年，当霍法的卡车司机工会处于全盛时期时，只有十分之一的美国政府工作人员属于工会;现在是36%。2009年，美国公共部门的工会会员人数超过了私营部门的会员人数。在英国，超过一半的公共部门员工加入了工会，但只有大约15%的私营部门员工加入了工会。

        公共部门工会的兴盛有三个原因。首先，他们可以在不承担太多后果的情况下关闭项目。其次，他们大多聪明，受过良好教育。四分之一的美国公共部门工作人员拥有大学学位。第三，他们现在主导了中间偏左的公众。他们有些关系可以追溯到很久以前。英国工党，顾名思义，长期以来一直与工会主义联系在一起。工党现任领袖埃德•米利班德(Ed Miliband)的地位要归功于公共部门工会的投票。

        在州一级，他们的影响甚至更可怕。加州公共政策研究所的Mark Baldassare指出，该州的大部分预算都是由工会监督的。教师工会关注学校，CCPOA关注监狱，各种劳工组织关注医疗保健。

        在许多富裕国家，国有部门的平均工资高于私营部门。但真正的收获来自于福利和工作实践。政客们一再“重加”公共部门的工资协议，使工资增长适度，但增加了假期，特别是已经很慷慨的养老金。

        改革遭到了强烈反对，其中最臭名昭著的可能是教育领域，在那里，特许学校、学院和绩效工资都面临着旷日持久的斗争。即使有大量证据表明教师的素质是最重要的变量，教师工会也一直反对解雇坏教师，提拔好教师。

        当其他所有人的代价变得越来越清晰时，政客们已经开始压制。在威斯康辛州，工会召集了数千名支持者反对强硬的共和党州长斯科特•沃克。但在当前的体制下，许多公共部门也遭受了损失。

36. It can be learned from the first paragraph that ?

[A] Teamsters still have a large body of members.

[B] Jimmy Hoffa used to work as a civil servant.

[C] unions have enlarged their public-secotor membership.

[D] the government has improved its relationship with unionists.

37. Which of the following is true of Para. 2?

[A] Public-sector unions are prudent in taking actions.

[B] Education is required for public-sector union membership.

[C] Labor Party has long been fighting against public-sector unions.

[D] Public-sector unions seldom get in trouble for their actions.

38. It can be learned from Para. 4 that the income in the state sector is ?

[A] illegally secured.[非法获得。]

[B] indirectly augmented.[间接地增强]

[C] excessively increased.[过度增加]

[D] fairly adjusted.[相当调整]

39. The example of the unions in Wisconsin shows that unions ?

[A] often run against the current political system.

[B] can change people's political attitudes.

[C] may be a barrier to public-sector reforms.

[D] are dominant in the government.

40. John Donahue's attitude towards the public-sector system is one of ?

[A] disapproval

[B] appreciation

[C] tolerance

[D] indifference

Part B

 Think of those fleeting【转瞬间的】 moments when you look out of an aeroplane【飞机】 window and realise that you are flying, higher than a bird. Now think of your laptop【笔记本电脑】, thinner than a brown-paper【牛皮纸】 envelop, or your cellphone in the palm of your hand. Take a moment or two to wonder at those marvels【奇迹】. You are the lucky inheritor【继承人】 of a dream come true.

        The second half of the 20th century saw a collection of geniuses, warriors【战士】, entrepreneurs【创业者】 and visionaries【愿景者】 labour to create a fabulous【绝妙的】 machine that could function as a typewriter and printing press, studio and theatre, paintbrush【画笔】 and gallery【画廊】, piano and radio, the mail as well as the mail carrier. 41___C_____.

        The networked computer is an amazing device, the first media machine that serves as the mode of production, means of distribution, site of reception【接待处】, and place of praise and critique【批评】. The computer is the 21st century's culture machine.

        But for all the reasons there are to celebrate the computer, we must also act with caution. 42__D____ I call it a secret war for two reasons. First, most people do not realize that there are strong commercial agenda【待议事项】 at work to keep them in passive consumption mode. Second, the majority of people who use networked computers to upload are not even aware of the significance of what they are doing.

        All animals download, but only a few upload. Beavers build dams and birds make nests. Yet for the most part, the animal kingdom moves through the world downloading. Humans are unique in their capacity to not only make tools but then turn around and use them to create superfluous【奢侈的】 material goods——paintings, sculpture and architecture——and superfluous experiences——music, literature, religion and philosophy. 43___A____.

        For all the possibilities of our new culture machines, most people are still stuck in download mode. Even after the advent【出现】 of widespread social media, a pyramid of production remains, with a small number of people uploading material, a slightly larger group commenting on or modifying that content, and a huge percentage remaining content to just consume. 44___F____.

        Television is a one-way tap flowing into our homes. The hardest task that television asks of anyone is to turn the power off after he has turned it on. 45__G_____.

        What counts as meaningful uploading? My definition revolves around  the concept of "stickness"——creations and experiences to which others adhere.

[A] Of course, it is precisely these superfluous things that define human culture and ultimately what it is to be human. Downloading and consuming culture requires great skills, but failing to move beyond downloading is to strip oneself of a defining constituent of humanity.

[B] Application like tumblr.com, which allow users to combine pictures, words and other media in creative ways and then share them, have the potential to add stickness by amusing, entertaining and enlightening others.

[C] Not only did they develop such a device but by the turn of the millennium they had also managed to embed【把……插入】 it in a  worldwide system accessed by billions of people every day.

[D] This is because the networked computer has sparked【点燃，引发】 a secret war between downloading and uploading——between passive【被动的】 consumption and active creation——whose outcome will shape our corrective future in ways we can only begin to imagine.

[F] One reason for the persistence of this pyramid of production is that for the past half-century, much of the world's media culture has been defined by a single medium——television——and television is defined by downloading.

[G] The networked computer offers the first chance in 50 years to reverse the flow, to encourage thoughtful downloading and, even more importantly, meaningful uploading.

翻译：

        想想那些飞逝的瞬间，当你望向窗外，意识到自己正在飞得比鸟还高。现在想想你的笔记本电脑，比牛皮纸信封还薄，或者你的手机在你的掌心。花点时间欣赏一下这些奇迹吧。你是梦想成真的幸运继承人。

        在20世纪下半叶，一群天才、战士、企业家和梦想家努力创造了一种神奇的机器，它可以作为打字机和印刷机、工作室和剧院、刷子和画廊、钢琴和收音机、邮件和邮差。他们不仅开发了这样一种设备，而且在世纪之交，他们还成功地将其嵌入到一个每天有数十亿人接入的全球系统中。

         联网的计算机是一种令人惊异的装置，它是第一种作为生产方式、传播手段、接收场所、赞美和批评场所的媒体机器。计算机是21世纪的文化机器。

        但是，尽管有种种理由来庆祝电脑，我们也必须谨慎行事。这是因为联网电脑引发了一场下载与上传之间的秘密战争——被动消费与主动创造之间的战争——其结果将以我们只能开始想象的方式塑造我们的正确未来。我称它为秘密战争有两个原因。首先，大多数人没有意识到工作中有强大的商业议程使他们处于被动消费模式。其次，大多数使用联网电脑上传的人甚至没有意识到他们所做的事情的重要性。

        所有动物都下载，但只有少数动物上传。海狸筑水坝，鸟儿筑巢。然而，在大多数情况下，动物王国是通过下载来移动世界的。人类的独特之处在于，他们不仅有能力制造工具，而且还能利用这些工具创造多余的物质商品——绘画、雕塑和建筑——以及多余的体验——音乐、文学、宗教和哲学。当然，正是这些多余的东西定义了人类文化，并最终定义了什么是人类。下载和消费文化需要高超的技能，但如果不能超越下载，就等于剥夺了人类的一个决定性组成部分。

        尽管我们的新文化机器有各种可能性，但大多数人仍然停留在下载模式。在广泛的社交媒体出现之后，生产的金字塔仍然存在，一小部分人上传材料，一小部分人对内容进行评论或修改，剩下的内容有很大一部分是纯粹消费的。这种金字塔式的生产方式经久不衰的一个原因是，在过去的半个世纪里，世界上大部分媒体文化都由单一的媒体定义——电视——而电视的定义是下载。

         电视是进入我们家的单向水龙头。电视对任何人提出的最困难的任务，就是在他打开电源后，把它关掉。网络化的计算机提供了50年来第一次扭转这种趋势的机会，鼓励深思熟虑的下载，更重要的是，鼓励有意义的上传。

什么才是有意义的上传?我对“粘性”的定义是围绕着“粘性”这个概念展开的，即其他人所遵循的创造和体验。

Part C

        Since the days of Aristotle, a search for universal【普遍的】 principles【普遍原则】 has characterized the scientific enterprise【科技企业，科学事业】. In some ways, this  quest for commonalities【n. 公共；共性；老百姓；平民】 defines science. Newton's laws of motion and Darwinian【达尔文的】 evolution【进化论】 each bind【使紧密联系】 a host of different phenomena into a single explicatory【adj. 说明的；解释的】 framework.

        (46)In physics, one approach【方法】 takes this impulse for unification【联合，统一】 to its extreme, and seeks a theory of everything——a single generative【生殖的；生产的；有生殖力的；有生产力的】 equation for all we see. It is becoming less clear, however, that such a theory would be a simplification【n. 简单化；单纯化】, given the dimensions【n. 方面；空间，大小；维度，层面】 and universes that it might entail【使必要，需要】. Nonetheless, unification of sorts remains a major goal.
        This tendency in the natural sciences has long been evident in the social sciences too. (47)Here, Darwinism seems to offer justification【n. 正当理由，合理解释；证明为正当，辩护；齐行，整版】, for if all humans share common origins, it seems reasonable to suppose that cultural diversity could also be traced to more constrained beginnings.  Just as the bewildering【 使人困惑的；令人产生混乱的】 variety of human courtship【n. 求爱；求婚；求爱期】 rituals【n. 典礼；宗教仪式；固定程序（ritual的复数形式）】 might all be considered forms of sexual selection, perhaps the world's languages, music, social and religious【adj. 宗教的，与宗教相关的】 customs【风俗，习俗；习惯】 and even history are governed【v. 管理（govern 的过去式和过去分词）；统治；支配】 by universal features. (48) To filter out what is unique from what is shared might enable us to understand how complex cultural behavior arose and what guides it in evolutionary【进化论的】 or cognitive【adj. 认识的，认知的】 terms.

        That, at least, is the hope. But a comparative study of linguistic【adj. 语言的，语言学的】 traits【n. 特性，特质，性格】 published online today supplies a reality check. Russell Gray at the University of Auckland and  his colleagues consider the evolution of grammers in the light of two previous【adj. 以前的，先前的；】 attempts to find universality in language.

        (49)The second, by Joshua Greenbergm takes a more empirical【adj. 经验主义的，以经验为依据的】 approach to universality, identifying traits (particularly in word order) shared by many languages, which are considered to represent biases【n. 偏心，偏见；偏差】 that result from  cognitive constraints.

        Gray and his colleagues have put them to the test by examining four family trees that between them represent more than 2,000 languages. (50) Chomsky's grammer should show patterns of language change that are independent of the family tree or the pathway tracked throught it, whereas Greenbergian universality predicts strong codependencies between particular types of word-order relations. Neither of these patterns is borne【v. 忍受；负荷；结果实；生子女（bear 的过去分词）】 out by the analysis, suggesting that the structures of the languages are lineage-specific【系列特异性】 and not governed by universals.

翻译：

        自亚里士多德时代以来，科学事业的特点就是追求普遍的原理。在某种程度上，这种对共性的追求定义了科学。牛顿的运动定律和达尔文的进化论都把许多不同的现象捆绑在一个单一的解释框架中。

        在物理学中，有一种方法将这种一元化的冲动发挥到极致，并寻求一种万能的理论——一个w我们可以看得见的单一的生成方程。然而，考虑到它可能包含的维度和宇宙，这样的理论是否会是一种简化，这一点正变得越来越不清楚。尽管如此，各种形式的统一仍然是一个主要目标。

        自然科学中的这种趋势在社会科学中也很明显。(47)在这里，达尔文主义似乎提供了理由，因为如果所有的人类都有共同的起源，那么似乎有理由假设文化多样性也可以追溯到更为有限的起源。就像人类各种各样令人眼花缭乱的求偶仪式都可能被认为是性选择的形式一样，也许世界上的语言、音乐、社会和宗教习俗，甚至历史都是由普遍特征所支配的。(48)从共有的东西中过滤出独特的东西，可能使我们能够理解复杂的文化行为是如何产生的，以及在进化或认知方面是什么引导着它。

        至少，这是希望。但一项发表在网上的语言特征对比研究提供了一个现实检验。奥克兰大学(University of Auckland)的拉塞尔·格雷(Russell Gray)和他的同事根据之前两次寻找语言普遍性的尝试，思考了语法的演变。

        格雷和他的同事们通过研究代表2000多种语言的四种家谱对这些语言进行了测试。(50)乔姆斯基的语法法应该显示出语言变化的模式，这些模式独立于系谱树或通过系谱树追踪的路径，而格林伯格的普遍性预测了特定类型的词序关系之间的强相互依赖。 这两种模式都没有在分析中得到证实，这表明语言的结构是特定于谱系的，而不是由普遍性所控制的。