本文選擇《經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人》雜志2013年9月23日。譯文來自網(wǎng)絡(luò)。 原文鏈接：http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21586580-fakes-say-some-interesting-things-about-economics-art-emperors-new-pictures

WHAT makes an artist great? Brilliant composition, no doubt. Superb draughtsmanship, certainly. Originality of subject or of concept, sometimes. But surely true greatness means that the creator of a painting has brought a certain je ne sais quoi to the work as well. 是什么成就了一名偉大的畫家？出色的構(gòu)圖？高超的畫技？這兩點(diǎn)毋庸置疑。有時(shí)也靠創(chuàng)作主題或理念的新穎性。但真正的偉大指的是畫家為作品賦予一種難以描述的特質(zhì)。

There is, however, a type of person who seems to sait perfectly well what that quoi is, and can turn it out on demand. In 1945, for example, a Dutchman named Han van Meegeren faced execution for selling a national art treasure, in the form of a painting by Vermeer, to Hermann G爀椀渀, Hitler’s deputy. His defence was that it was a forgery he had painted himself. When asked to prove it by copying a Vermeer he scorned the offer. Instead he turned out a completely new painting, “Jesus Among the Doctors”, in the style of the master, before the eyes of his incredulous inquisitors. 然而，有這樣一種人，他們似乎能準(zhǔn)確把握這個(gè)難以名狀的東西，并且能夠按要求把它復(fù)制出來。例如，1945年，一位名叫漢·凡·米格倫（HanvanMeegeren）的荷蘭人因?qū)⒁环鶉?guó)家藝術(shù)珍品，也就是維米爾（Vermeer）的一幅畫作，賣給*的副手赫爾曼·戈林（HermannG爀椀渀）而面臨死刑。他辯稱這只是幅贗品，由他本人仿造。當(dāng)被要求現(xiàn)場(chǎng)模仿一幅維米爾的畫作來證明自己時(shí)，他表示十分不屑。在審判者懷疑的眼神下，他以維米爾的風(fēng)格創(chuàng)作了一幅全新的作品《基督在博學(xué)者中間》。

此處例子功能題：作者為何提及荷蘭畫家？

G爀椀渀, who was facing a little local difficulty at the time, did not sue van Meegeren. But that has not been the experience of Glafira Rosales, an art dealer in New York who admitted this week that she has, over the past 15 years, fooled two local commercial art galleries into buying 63 forged works of art for more than $30m. She is being forced to give the money back, and is still awaiting sentence. 戈林當(dāng)時(shí)在本國(guó)遇到了點(diǎn)麻煩，所以就沒有起訴凡·米格倫。但格拉菲拉·羅薩萊斯（GlafiraRosales）可沒那么好運(yùn)了。作為紐約的一位藝術(shù)品商人，羅薩萊斯于本周承認(rèn)了在過去的十五年里曾向兩個(gè)當(dāng)?shù)氐纳虡I(yè)藝術(shù)畫廊賣出了63幅假畫，總收益達(dá)三千多萬(wàn)美元。她被強(qiáng)制要求退還所有收入，目前仍在等待法院的判決。

此處細(xì)節(jié)題，考有關(guān)Rosales 的例子內(nèi)容。

Ms Rosales is guilty of passing goods off as something they are not, and should take the rap for the fraud. But although art forgers do a certain amount of economic damage, they also provide public entertainment by exposing the real values that lie at the heart of the art market. 羅薩萊斯女士因出售贗品獲罪，應(yīng)承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的刑事責(zé)任。但雖然這些藝術(shù)品偽造者給他人造成了一定的經(jīng)濟(jì)損失，但他們也通過揭露藝術(shù)品市場(chǎng)上核心藝術(shù)品的真實(shí)價(jià)值而娛樂了大眾。

此處詞匯理解題：解釋take the rap。

That art market pretends that great artists are inimitable, and that this inimitability justifies the often absurd prices their work commands. Most famous artists are good: that is not in question. But as forgers like van Meegeren and Pei-Shen Qian, the painter who turned out Ms Rosales’s Rothkos and Pollocks, show, they are very imitable indeed. If they were not, the distinction between original and knock-off would always be obvious. As Ms Rosales’s customers have found, no doubt to their chagrin, it isn’t. 藝術(shù)品市場(chǎng)稱偉大的藝術(shù)家都是獨(dú)一無二的，而這種不可模仿性使得他們的作品都貴得離譜。大多數(shù)的藝術(shù)家都很優(yōu)秀，這一點(diǎn)毋庸置疑。但像偽造者凡·米格倫和為羅薩萊斯女士偽造羅斯科和波洛克畫作的錢培琛，他們的存在證明了這些藝術(shù)家是可以被模仿的。如果不是的話，那真品和贗品之間的差別就會(huì)十分明顯。羅薩萊斯女士的顧客就沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)其中的區(qū)別，難怪事后他們懊惱不已。

此處句子理解題，解釋黑體字部分。chagrin: 懊悔，懊惱。

If the purchasers of great art were buying paintings only for their beauty, they would be content to display fine fakes on their walls. The fury and embarrassment caused by the exposure of a forger suggests this is not so. 如果購(gòu)買者純粹是因?yàn)樾蕾p畫作的美而去購(gòu)買它，那么即使是把假畫掛在自家墻上也會(huì)心滿意足。但偽造者的曝光所引起的憤怒和尷尬說明了情況并非如此。

Expensive pictures are primarily what economists call positional goods—things that are valuable largely because other people can’t have them. The painting on the wall, or the sculpture in the garden, is intended to say as much about its owner’s bank balance as about his taste. With most kit a higher price reduces demand. But art, sports cars and fine wine invert the laws of economics. When the good that is really being purchased is evidence that the buyer has forked out a bundle, price spikes cause demand to boom. 名貴的畫作被經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家稱為地位性商品——這類商品昂貴的價(jià)值很大程度是因?yàn)槠渌�人無法擁有。不管是墻上的名畫，還是花園里的雕塑，都彰顯著其主人的品位和財(cái)富。大多數(shù)情況下，價(jià)格越高，需求就會(huì)越少。但是藝術(shù)品，跑車和名酒卻打破了這一經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)定律。當(dāng)真正被買下的商品能證明買家的確是花了大手筆時(shí)，那么價(jià)格的上漲反而會(huì)使需求猛增。

All this makes the scarcity and authenticity that underpin lofty valuations vital. Artists forget this at their peril: Damien Hirst’s spot pictures, for instance, plummeted in value when it became clear that they had been produced in quantities so vast nobody knew quite how many were out there, and when the market lost faith in a mass-production process whose connection with the original artist was, to say the least, tenuous. 這個(gè)現(xiàn)象說明了商品稀缺性和真實(shí)性的重要性。正因?yàn)榇�，藝術(shù)品的價(jià)格才會(huì)持續(xù)居高不下。藝術(shù)家若忽視這一點(diǎn)，便會(huì)自嘗苦果。例如，當(dāng)達(dá)明安·赫斯特（DamienHirst）的現(xiàn)場(chǎng)畫作被大批量生產(chǎn)時(shí)，其價(jià)格直跌。市場(chǎng)對(duì)批量生產(chǎn)過程失去了信心，至少可以說，這樣生產(chǎn)出來的作品和原創(chuàng)者的聯(lián)系不再緊密。

Ms Rosales’s career is thus a searing social commentary on a business which purports to celebrate humanity’s highest culture but in which names are more important than aesthetics and experts cannot tell the difference between an original and a fake. Unusual, authentic, full of meaning—her life itself is surely art, even if the paintings were not. 羅薩萊斯女士的一生無非是對(duì)藝術(shù)行業(yè)的嘲諷。這個(gè)行業(yè)聲稱頌揚(yáng)人類崇高的文化，但藝術(shù)家的名字卻比美感更重要，而專家卻連真品和贗品都無法區(qū)別開來。即使羅薩萊斯女士出售的畫作不是真正的藝術(shù)品，但她的一生，不同尋常、萬(wàn)般真實(shí)且意義深刻，充滿了藝術(shù)性。 上半場(chǎng)閱讀理解第二篇：

In 1965, America’s big companies had a hell of a year. The stock market was booming. Sales were rising briskly, profit margins were fat, and corporate profits as a percentage of G.D.P. were at an all-time high. Almost half a century later, some things look much the same: big American companies have had a hell of a year, with the stock market soaring, margins strong, and profits hitting a new all-time high. But there’s one very noticeable difference. In 1965, C.E.O.s at big companies earned, on average, about twenty times as much as their typical employee. These days, C.E.O.s earn about two hundred and seventy times as much. 從第二段開頭的the huge gap可以看出第一段講的是兩種經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況之間的差距。這里也正好是第一題的定位：The author makes a comparison between today’s America with that of 1965______.既然第二段追究的是這種gap的原因，那么答案就在第一段結(jié)尾處：今天的CEO-雇員的收入差距比大大增加了。

That huge gap between the top and the middle is the result of a boom in executive compensation, which rose eight hundred and seventy-six per cent between 1978 and 2011, according to a study by the liberal Economic Policy Institute. In response, we’ve had a host of regulatory reforms designed to curb executive pay. The latest of these is a rule, unveiled by the S.E.C. last month, requiring companies to disclose the ratio of the C.E.O.’s pay to that of the median worker. The idea is that, once the disparity is made public, companies will be less likely to award outsized pay packages. Faith in disclosure has been crucial to the regulation of executive pay since the nineteen-thirties, when companies were first required to reveal those figures. More recently, rules have made companies detail the size and the structure of compensation packages and have enforced transparency about the kinds of comparisons they rely on to determine salaries. The business press, meanwhile, now rigorously tracks executive pay. The result is that shareholders today know far more about C.E.O. compensation than ever before. There’s only one problem: even as companies are disclosing more and more, executive pay keeps going up and up.

這一段開頭黑體部分為我們提示了一個(gè)關(guān)鍵字：disclosure. 由此可以看出本文的話題是從收入差距說開去，轉(zhuǎn)向CEO的收入披露機(jī)制。

This isn’t a coincidence: the drive for transparency has actually helped fuel the spiralling salaries. For one thing, it gives executives a good idea of how much they can get away with asking for. A more crucial reason, though, has to do with the way boards of directors set salaries. As the corporate-governance experts Charles Elson and Craig Ferrere write in a recent paper, boards at most companies use what’s called “peer benchmarking.” They look at the C.E.O. salaries at peer-group firms, and then peg their C.E.O.’s pay to the fiftieth, seventy-fifth, or ninetieth percentile of the peer group—never lower. This leads to the so-called Lake Wobegon effect: every C.E.O. gets treated as above average. With all the other companies following the same process, salaries ratchet inexorably higher. “Relying on peer-group comparisons, the way boards do, mathematically guarantees that pay is going to go up,” Elson told me.

本段講到越是披露高管們的收入，他們就越能要求更高的收入。

On top of this, peer-group comparisons aren’t always honest: boards can be too cozy with C.E.O.s and may tweak the comparisons to justify overpaying. A recent study by the labor economist Ron Laschever shows that boards tend to include as peers companies that are bigger than they are and that pay their C.E.O.s more. The system is also skewed by so-called “l(fā)eapfroggers,” the few C.E.O.s in a given year who, whether by innate brilliance or by dumb luck, end up earning astronomical salaries. Those big paydays reset the baseline expectations for everyone else.

段首句是主題句：高管們可能還會(huì)想方設(shè)法隱瞞自己高增長(zhǎng)的收入。

This isn’t just an American problem. Elson notes that, when Canada toughened its disclosure requirements, executive salaries there rose sharply, and German studies have found something similar. Nor is it primarily a case of boards being helplessly in thrall to a company’s executives. Boards are far more independent of management than they used to be, and it’s notable that a C.E.O. hired from outside a company—who therefore has no influence over the board—typically gets twenty to twenty-five per cent more than an inside candidate. The real issues are subtler, though no less insidious. Some boards, in the face of much evidence to the contrary, remain convinced of what Elson calls “superstar theory”: they think that C.E.O.s can work their magic anywhere, and must be overpaid to stay. In addition, Elson said, “if you pay below average, it makes it look as if you’d hired a below-average C.E.O., and what board wants that?”

這個(gè)問題并不局限于美國(guó)，而是國(guó)際化的。

Transparent pricing has perverse effects in other fields. In a host of recent cases, public disclosure of the prices that hospitals charge for various procedures has ended up driving prices up rather than down. And the psychological causes in both situations seem similar. We tend to be uneasy about bargaining in situations where the stakes are very high: do you want the guy doing your neurosurgery, or running your company, to be offering discounts? Better, in the event that something goes wrong, to be able to tell yourself that you spent all you could. And overspending is always easier when you’re spending someone else’s money. Corporate board members are disbursing shareholder funds; most patients have insurance to foot the bill.

收入披露在其他領(lǐng)域中也會(huì)引起一系列不良反應(yīng)。

Sunlight is supposed to be the best disinfectant. But there’s something na瘀攀 about the new S.E.C. rule, which presumes that full disclosure will embarrass companies enough to restrain executive pay. As Elson told me, “People who can ask to be paid a hundred million dollars are beyond embarrassment.” More important, as long as the system for setting pay is broken, more disclosure makes things worse instead of better. We don’t need more information. We need boards of directors to step up and set pay themselves, instead of outsourcing the job to their peers. The rest of us don’t get to live in Lake Wobegon. C.E.O.s shouldn’t, either.

本文得出的結(jié)論是，SEC的規(guī)則的潛臺(tái)詞是，完全披露收入將會(huì)是各大公司不愿提高高管的薪水。 上半場(chǎng)閱讀理解第三篇：

本文講述全球人口增長(zhǎng)問題。文章第一段提出了Sir David Attenborough 的悲觀看法：100年后的世界會(huì)出現(xiàn)各種問題，所以我們今天的人類一定要做好準(zhǔn)備，盡力逆轉(zhuǎn)。第二段用數(shù)字列舉了人口增長(zhǎng)的趨勢(shì)。第三、四兩段討論了解決人口增長(zhǎng)問題的conventioanal wisdom. 第五段提出非洲的新生兒死亡率大幅增加。第六段中，作者根據(jù)以上內(nèi)容提出，世界人口停止增長(zhǎng)的日期應(yīng)該早于2070年。而且無論如何，讀者無需為人口增長(zhǎng)過快擔(dān)憂。第七段分析了耕地和動(dòng)物分布狀況，同樣得出了無需杞人憂天的結(jié)論。后一段贊揚(yáng)了非洲的進(jìn)步會(huì)為人類生存環(huán)境的改善加分。

題目解析：

第一題問作者為什么要提出Sir David Attenborough 的悲觀看法。

第二題圍繞birth control 的種種細(xì)節(jié)。

第三題要求考生解釋詞匯：as night follows day的意思。

第四題是新問法：四個(gè)說法中哪一個(gè)與另外三個(gè)不同?相當(dāng)于NOT TRUE 體型。

第五題主旨題 上半場(chǎng)閱讀理解第四篇： 本文開頭便指出Help to buy 政策等同于help to vote，由此可知，該篇文章屬于政治類。本文主人公George Osborne 提出一項(xiàng)help to buy 政策，而本段接下來便說IMF和其他經(jīng)濟(jì)觀察組織指出這項(xiàng)政策十分瘋狂。第二、三段中，作者為Osborne進(jìn)行辯護(hù)，這項(xiàng)政策開始時(shí)的確發(fā)揮了積極的作用。而且他們的團(tuán)隊(duì)的確積極推行。第四段說英國(guó)財(cái)政部也積極配合，使得這個(gè)項(xiàng)目與房地美和房利美有本質(zhì)不同。第五段話鋒一轉(zhuǎn)，說這個(gè)項(xiàng)目很好的證明了英國(guó)金融房地產(chǎn)政策的魯莽政策。并從幾個(gè)角度進(jìn)行了具體分析。第六段說英國(guó)二三十歲的年輕人就開始希望擁有房產(chǎn)，而其他幾個(gè)國(guó)家則普遍到四十歲以后考慮買房子，并用數(shù)據(jù)支持。第七段引用經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家的觀點(diǎn)說，國(guó)家補(bǔ)貼購(gòu)房的政策不僅為通貨膨脹的虛高的房?jī)r(jià)推波助瀾，而且還會(huì)影響到真正需要住房的人。第八段說，新增住房的增加只會(huì)對(duì)目前awesome 的房地產(chǎn)存量雪上加霜。

題目解析：

第一題請(qǐng)考生解釋help to vote 的意思。

第二題是詞匯理解，問第二段的talisman 的意思。

第三題通過第五段的一句話考察對(duì)整段的理解。

第四題問為什么作者比較了英國(guó)和其他幾個(gè)國(guó)家，用意何在。

第五題問后一段的段意。 下半場(chǎng)閱讀理解第一篇：

本文的大話題是英國(guó)福利制度改革，也是我們?cè)谛聳|方高口課堂上反復(fù)提示大家的重點(diǎn)話題。具體來說，本文講述英國(guó)的殘疾人福利制度。具體解析如下： 第一段開篇點(diǎn)出本文的矛盾焦點(diǎn)所在：英國(guó)的殘疾人是不是過度依賴“multiple benefits”。第二段列舉了一個(gè)長(zhǎng)期靠呼吸機(jī)生活的long-term disabled認(rèn)為，很多殘疾人之所以處境悲慘，就是因?yàn)閟ystem failure.第三段講到英國(guó)將推行PIP制度取代之前的殘疾人生活補(bǔ)貼制度，這就意味著英國(guó)的殘疾人將受到評(píng)估。第四段講到有很多輕度殘疾的人也能夠享受很多福利政策。文章接下來描述了上文那個(gè)殘疾人的生活。 本文后面附上三個(gè)題目。第一題請(qǐng)考生描述Dr Stephen Duckworth. 這是我們上課著重練習(xí)的定義模板�？忌�需要寫出此人的身份和他的主要觀點(diǎn)。重點(diǎn)應(yīng)放在此人的觀點(diǎn)上。 第二題請(qǐng)考生解釋本文第一段中的一個(gè)句子。因?yàn)檫@個(gè)考點(diǎn)是對(duì)第一段例子的總結(jié)，同時(shí)也引出文章的話題，所以可以在第一段中進(jìn)行paraphrase. 第三題是例子功能題。定位在后一段的結(jié)尾。考生基本上總結(jié)出后一段的內(nèi)容即可。

下半場(chǎng)閱讀理解第二篇：

本文是環(huán)保類話題，關(guān)鍵詞是geo-engineering。全文如下： A former Government chief scientist once told me that we should always have a Plan B ready in case Plan A doesn’t work – or doesn’t happen. He was speaking in relation to the possibility of “geo-engineering” the climate if it becomes obvious that global warming is beginning to tip irrevocably towards a potentially dangerous state.

He could only say this once he was out of office of course because the official Government view at the time – as it is now – was that “there is no Plan B” in relation to climate change, that the only conceivable way of avoiding dangerous global temperature increases in the future is to curb the production of greenhouse gas emissions now.

Geo-engineering is defined as the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system in order to limit undesirable climate change, but it is seen by many as a technical fix too far. At its most outlandish, geo-engineering envisages putting giant mirrors in space to deflect incoming solar radiation, but it also includes more benign interventions, such as solar powered “artificial trees” in the desert for soaking up carbon dioxide in the air.

Despite the official view of there being no Plan B, however, last week’s fifth report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has placed geo-engineering firmly on the agenda – even if the scientific panel rather denigrates the idea as probably unworkable and potentially dangerous. Nevertheless, for some critics of geo-engineering the mere mention of the concept in such an official and high-profile publication is enough to see red.

Indeed, the Canadian-based ETC Group of environmentalists, perceived a Russian-led conspiracy to subvert the IPCC process. Russia had insisted on the addition of geo-engineering to the report and it is Russia where many geo-engineering projects are being tested, the ETC Group claims.

Before getting carried away with the inclusion for the first time of geo-engineering in an IPCC report, it is worth pointing out that the panel emphasises the inherent flaws of the proposals to counter rising temperatures. Deflecting sunlight with artificially created white clouds over the oceans, for instance, would do nothing to prevent the acidification of the oceans and, if it had to be stopped for any reason, global surface temperatures would soon rise again even higher than before.

In short, if we rely on a technical fix to combat climate change, rather than addressing the root problem, we could become addicted to the illusion that all is well when, in fact, all that we are doing is delaying the inevitable, while increasing the risk of some serious unintended consequences, which history tells us are never far away from big engineering proposals of this kind. Take for instance the relatively small-scale geo-engineering project to divert the rivers running into the Aral Sea of the former Soviet Union. Half a century ago the Aral Sea was the fourth largest lake in the world with a thriving commercial fishery, but by 2007 it had declined to about 10 per cent of its original size, with fishing boats stranded in the middle of a toxic salt pan. Soviet scientists diverted water from two rivers running into the Aral Sea to irrigate fields of cotton and other crops. But in the end they created a barren, dusty landscape where once there was a sea filled with wildlife. Toxins and salt blown from the Aral’s parched basement even threatened the very crops that the project was meant to generate.

So when some people talk about the possibility of “fixing” the climate with technological interventions rather than cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, let’s not forget history. Perhaps HM Government is right: there is no Plan B.

Talking of carbon dioxide, I have just returned from an interesting visit to the Czech Republic where health tourism, rather than being frowned upon, is positively encouraged.

What has this got to do with carbon dioxide, you may ask? Well one of the more curious, if not bizarre “medical” treatments you can buy is a dip in a dry bath of carbon dioxide. For 20 minutes or so you bathe everything below your waist (fully clothed) in an atmosphere of “natural” carbon dioxide pumped from underground sources.

It is said by those who sell it to cure a range of conditions and even acts like a dose of Viagra. Strictly in the interests of science I volunteered. I intend to publish my findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal – that is if I can find one prepared to overlook my limited set of data points.

本文后附上三個(gè)題目： 1. What is geo-engineering? What are the possible international measures of geo-engineering? 2. What are the views of the critics of geo-engineering? 3. Why does the author introduce the small scale geo-engineering project? 從題目中可以看出，本文的中心詞是geo-engineering，文章對(duì)geo-engineering還提出了相當(dāng)?shù)馁|(zhì)疑，并提出可以實(shí)驗(yàn)小型geo-engineering。從文章第三段開始，可以找到geo-engineering的定義。接著正好是各國(guó)可以采用的手段和人們提出的質(zhì)疑。文章后三段相熟了小型的geo-engineering。 2014年3月高級(jí)口譯漢譯英答案含解析

原文：

我們認(rèn)識(shí)到，改革是一場(chǎng)深刻的革命，涉及重大利益關(guān)系調(diào)整，涉及各方面體制機(jī)制完善。中國(guó)改革已進(jìn)入攻堅(jiān)期和深水區(qū)。這是因?yàn)椋��?dāng)前改革需要解決的問題格外艱巨，都是難啃的硬骨頭，這個(gè)時(shí)候就要一鼓作氣，瞻前顧后、畏葸不前不僅不能前進(jìn)，而且可能前功盡棄。 中國(guó)是一個(gè)大國(guó)，決不能在根本性問題上出現(xiàn)*性錯(cuò)誤，一旦出現(xiàn)就無法挽回、無法彌補(bǔ)。我們的立場(chǎng)是膽子要大、步子要穩(wěn)，既要大膽探索、勇于開拓，也要穩(wěn) 妥審慎、三思而后行。我們要堅(jiān)持改革開放正確方向，敢于啃硬骨頭，敢于涉險(xiǎn)灘，敢于向積存多年的頑瘴痼疾開刀，切實(shí)做到改革不停頓、開放不止步。

參考譯文：

We perceive the reform as a profound revolution, involving adjustment of relationships among major stakeholders and improvement of multiple systems and mechanisms. China’s reform has entered a phase of toughness and hardness. Confronted with the extraordinary difficulty in addressing problems in reforms, we need to gather all the courage and strength since hesitation will lead to no progress and even the deprivation of what we have accomplished. When it comes to fundamental issues, China, as a country of profound influences, can’t afford any subversive mistake, which would be irretrievable upon emerging. We should keep both courageous exploration and prudent actions based on the standpoint of bravery and steady progress. Marching in the correct direction of the reform and opening-up, we should dare to challenge hard nuts, tough situations and longstanding problems so as to achieve the persistence and eternity of the reform and opening-up.

【評(píng)析】

文本節(jié)選自習(xí)近平主席在亞太經(jīng)合組織工商領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人峰會(huì)上的演講。此次演講中，他向世界展示了中國(guó)的改革強(qiáng)音，對(duì)于中國(guó)未來走向何方，如何深入貫徹改革進(jìn)行了充分闡述。 原文對(duì)仗工整、富有文采，多用四字成語(yǔ)。在翻譯時(shí)不宜拘泥于原文結(jié)構(gòu)和字面意義，應(yīng)在理解原意的基礎(chǔ)上，按照英文的習(xí)慣，清晰表達(dá)段落意思。同時(shí)，考生還應(yīng)注意譯文與原文文風(fēng)的匹配，盡可能保留原文的氣勢(shì)。