I. Reading Comprehension (50 points)

   A. Multiple Choice (24 points)

   Please read the passages and choose A, B, C or D to best complete the statements about them.

                           Hot under the Collar

    One of the Labour Party's many transformations during Tony Blair' s leadership was its conversion to environmentalism. A party with its roots in dirty, heavy industry such as coal-mines and blast-furnaces presented itself as an eco-friendly guardian of the planet' s future. The most visible form of this was a commitment, in Labour's 1997 manifesto, to cut 20% off British greenhouse-gas emissions by 2010 compared with their 1990 levels. That went above and beyond the 12.5% required by the Kyoto treaty.

   This pledge has been repeated as recently as the last election, but the promises have not stood

up to reality. Since 1999, British greenhouse-gas emissions have been broadly unchanged. Disillusionment among environmentalists has gradually given way to an anger which found an attention-grabbing means of expression this week, when Greenpeace dumped a lorry-load of coal outside Downing Street. Stephen Tindale, its boss and a former government adviser, accused Mr. Blair of empty rhetoric. The WWF went further, claiming that Mr. Blair' s policies sounded identical to those of George Bush --- the eco-worrier's nastiest insult.

   So far, Britain has had an easy ride cutting emissions. The rhythm of technological change and relatively painless policy choices have helped put the country on course to meet its Kyoto obligations. In an attempt to rescue the 20% target, ministers have ordered a policy review, which the G uardian obtained this week. The review, to be formally published next year, acknowledged that cutting emissions further will be hard.

    Power generation is a good example of why. The government' ’s "flagship policy" on climate change has been to offer subsidies to renewable energy. But much of the cut in emissions predates these handouts and owed more to economy than ecology. Newly liberalized electricity firms replaced old, dirty coal- f ired power plants with new, clean gas-fired ones in the "dash for gas" in the 1990s because they were cheaper, not because they were clea ner----- that was just a happy coincidence. In deed , part of the reason for modest emissions rises in the past two years is that high gas prices have prompted  some companies to switch back to coal.

 More gas power plants ( and possibly nuclear one., too ) will eventnnlly be built, but n ot fast enough to rescue the gove rnment from its difficulties.Renewables will help , too, but wind farms are often unpopular with local residents , and wi th t he public finances looking sickly, c all for an extra vagant subsidy ( recast to reach 1 billion--$ 1.72 billion a y ear by 2010).

   Industry already b ears the brunt of Britain's c limate commitments through the Climate C hang e Lev y , a t ax on energy use, and the European Emissions Trading Schem e ( K T S) , which all ocates tradable emissions limits for firms. Introducing new re strictions will be politically difficult. Min isters tacitly acknowledged as much last year, when they bowed to industry pressure to seek a rise, in Britain’s European emissions allowances.

  So, too, in transport, where emissions have risen by 10% since 1990 and which now accountsfor a quarter of Britain’s greenhouse-gas output. Most of the emissions come from road transport, but motorists face only weak incentives to buy carbon-friendly cars (the difference in road tax between the most and least efficient is only £ 115 a year). Labour has been scared of the road lobby ever since the fuel protests of 2000, which brought the country to a halt and ended the policy of annual fuel-tax rises.the one measure that might curb emissions.Ministers says they want to bring airlines into the ETS, but that would require Europe-wide cooperation.

      Many greens pin their hopes on energy efficiency. Many people have already installed insulation and double-glazing, but more is to be done. Higher efficiency standards for new buildings will help, but wil l take many decades to affect the overall efficiency of Britain’s dwellings and workplaces. Other savings from conservation tend to call for new habits, which William Blyth, an environmental analyst at Chatham House, reckons will make them difficult to realise. .People dislike the idea of changing their behaviour for an abstract idea,. he says. They like having the problem taken out of their hands.. Others worry about the rebound effect that, while conservation saves money, the gains are spent on such polluting activities as, say, holidaying abroad, which offset much of the environmental benefit.

Mr Blair’s domestic reputation is not the only thing at stake. He has been using Britain’s presidency of the G8 rich nations’ club to harangue other global leaders on the need for a successor treaty to Kyoto. Preliminary discussions are due to begin later this month at a summit in Montreal. If Mr Blair cannot present a plausible plan to meet his domestic goals, he will be robbed of international credibility.

That would be a blow for the prime minister, who is keen to play a part in the delicate negotiations for a new treaty. Besides, a lack of progress in the talks (which could outlast Mr Blair’s premiership) would make it harder for him to impose the policies he needs to defend his domestic targets. Businesses will object to strict regulations without the prospect of their international competitors in America, China and India knuckling under. And while the public claims to be worried about climate change, its concern runs only so deep. A recent poll from the Stockholm Network, a group of European think-tanks, found that while 94% of Britons thought climate change was important, 62% put economic growth before carbon reduction. In  other words, a  unilateral carbon-reduction  policy is unworkable.

A draft document is not the same thing as government policy, but the signs are not encouraging. The review has 58 separate recommendations, making it seem more a set of quick fixes than a coherent policy. These range from the sensible, but difficult (tightening ETS allocations) to gimmicks (stricter enforcement of speed limits on motorways). The draft admits that, even if all of them are adopted, Britain may still miss its target. Mr Blair has been an evangelist on climate change. Now comes the big test of his resolve.  

   1 . Greenpea c e dumped a lorry-load of coal outside Downing Street to ______.

      A. arouse public attention to the use of coal

      B. block the government ministers' way to work

      C. criticize Tony Blair's lack of action in cutting British green-house gas emissions

      D. demonstrate that the British Labour Party's 1997 Manifesto was against the Kyoto treaty

   2. Britain has been able to meet its Kyoto obligations because ___________.

      A. the government subsidizes the use of renewable energy

      B. privatized firms opt for clean energy

      C. power generation mainly relies on clean energy

      D. cleaner energy happens to be cheaper

   3. What does the word `harangue' mean in the ninth paragraph?

      A. To call upon. B. To preach to. C. To teach. D. To guide.

   4. It is suggested in the passage that Britain ____________.

      A. should take advantage of its presidency of the G8 to change emission standards

      B. would undermine its own position in the G8 if its domestic environment policy fails

      C. has disagreement with other developed countries on emission standards

      D. is faced with a government crisis over the issue of green-house gas emissions

   5. Britons tend to believe that cutting green-house emissions __________.

       A. should not hinder economic development

       B. will slow down economic growth

        C. increases the international competitiveness of British business

       D. does not have impact on the climate change

   6. The writer thinks that _________.

      A. Britain will be faced with another energy crisis

      B. Tony Blair will lose his domestic credibility

      C. the Labour's 1997 manifesto will fail

      D. the transport industry is key to greenhouse emission cutting

 

                              Pricing Terror

    Of all the catastrophes that could befall America in coming years, a big terrorist attack, perhaps even bigger than those on September 11th 2001 , may be more likely than others. Who would pay for the millions in proper t y damage, business losses and other claims from such an attack?

    This is the question with which America's Congress is currently wrestling. The Terrorism Risk Act (TRIA) was passed sa a temporary measure after September 11th to provide a gove rnment back-stop for the insur ance industry in the event of a catastrophic attack. It now says govern ment can step in when insured losses from a terrorist event top $ 5 m. TRIA has helped to stabilize the market, and enabled insurers to continue offering terrorism-risk c over even after swallowing the big losses imposed by September 11th. But unless Congress a c ts fast, TRIA will expire at the end of the year. One likely result is the loss of terrorism-risk cover for thousands of firms and proper t y ow ners . This, in turn, could disrupt businesses and make some commercial activity impossible. With modifications, TRIA should be extended.

    The Bush administration has been opposed to extension. It has always seen TRIA a s a short-term measure, and has argued that the private sector should assume sole responsibility for terrorism insurance. This is the right goal. A purely private solution would be best, lifting any future burden from the taxpayer and relying on the industry to price and spread risks more accurately than any go v ernment can do. But relying entirely on the private sector immediately does not look feasible. With TRIA' s expiration looming, insurers and reinsurers have not, as the administration exp ected, rushed to write new contracts for next year offering to fall gaps in terrorism cover.

    Why the hesitation? Unlike other risks, the threat of terrorism cannot be forecast in time or scope, making a mockery of insurers' underwriting models. A big chemical, biological or nuclear attack is a prospect few can price, or afford to cover. Insurers are already being threatened with downgrades by rating agencies for the terrorism cover they have sold.

    One reason is that insurance, far from being a free market, is already one of the most h eavily regulated of industries. Operating in a highly distorted marketplace, with 50 state regulators , the insurance industry seems to be having trouble pricing the largest of terrorism risks in a way that is credible and can still offer insurers a profit. Letting TRIA expire, and abruptly withdrawing.th e government role in insuring the largest losses, would just exacerbate this problem.

    Any renewal of TRIA should, once again, be limited to two years, say. Its extension must also shift more of the burden, and the business, to the private sector. If an extension is agreed and

TRIA' s threshold for government intervention is raised substantially, work should begin now to find better longer-term solutions. One place to look is abroad, where governments have dealt with t errorism risk for years. In Britain, for instance, insurers have created a pool of capital that is backed by the government and, over time, shifts a greater share of risk on to thee private sector. Other options to consider include tax changes that reduce the cost of holding capital by insurers and reinsurers, and facilitating the use of catastrophe bonds.

    With fewer regulatory distortions of insurance markets, a solely private solution maybe attainable in the long run. In the current environment, though, the same government that regularly warns of t er rorist threats must still have a role to play in a solution that safeguards America's financial s ecurity. It would be better to plan ahead than wait for a rushed, Katrina-style bail-out after a big attack.. Amid all the uncertainties, one thing seems clear; any such bail-out would be more costly and lead to also greater market distortions without an extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act today.

   7. TRIA ________.

      A. provides insurance to properties in high-risk areas

      B. should be extended as it is now

      C. requires government support to risk insurance

      D. h as caused a substantial loss of revenue to the state

   8. In terrorism insurance, the private sector ___________.

     A. makes efficient use of the tax revenue in subsidizing insurance loss

     B. has strength in sharing the risk with other stakeholders in society

     C . is more e c onomically efficient in offering short-term insurance

     D. relies on the government to provide insurance for their loss

    9. The private sector is hesitant in taking sole responsibility for terrorism insurance because ___________.

      A. their current pricing models cannot estimate terrorism attacks properly

      B. they do not often insure things they cannot forecast

      C. they a r e threatened by loss of other insurance takers

      D. they do not have regulator-approved contracts that cover terrorism attacks

   10. The extension of TRIA should aim at ______________.

      A. making government intervention more unacceptable

      B. introducing foreign companies into terrorism insurance

      C. setting up catastrophe bonds managed by insurers and reinsurers

      D. pushing the private sector to take sole responsibility

   11 . If the government let TRIA expire, ________________.

       A. it should stop warning the public of terrorist attacks regularly

      B. it will have to pay more money when large scale catastrophe occurs

      C. regulatory distortions of insurance markets will be reduced

      D. private insurance companies will stop insuring terrorism attacks

   12. The writer is ________ in developing the argument in this passage.

      A. objective B. emotional C. disturbed D. indifferent

 

   B. True or False. (12 points)

   Below is a passage followed by six statements. Read the passage carefully and then decide whether the statements are true (T) or false (F).

                             A Tall Storey

    When plans for the "Shard of Glass", near London Bridge, were unveiled in 2000, English Heritage condemned the tower as "Europe' s tallest building and London's greatest folly". Since then, the disputes have come thick and fast. Only after a public enquiry did Re nzo Piano's sky -s craper w in planning consent at the end of 2003. The scheme is plagued by legal wrangles about its ownership . And, most emblematic of all, is the fuss over the four metres at the building's spire.

   The Sellar Property Group, a backer of the 310 metre ( 1,016 feet) Shard, insists the pointy

b its a t the top serve as ventilation. Rubbish, say the people behind the rival 63-storey Bishopsgate

Tower. Because they are a "mast", and thus not part of the building at all, the European title belongs to their own 307.25 metre "Hetler-Skelter".

    Such wrangles ar e everything in a city that is fast becoming recognized for its spe ctacular schemes to put up new towers. Since the last glass tile was stuck on Swiss R e ’s "Erotic Gherkin" in late 2003 , at least six high-rise towers containing at least 375,000 square metres of office space ha ve been pro posed for the city-though, in a market distinctly lacking tenants, it is ha r d to say pr e cisely when they will b e built.

    Proposals have come from all side s ., including the two largest British property firm s ., L and Securities and British Land. If built, the Helter-Skoher will be 72. 25 metre, higher than One Can ada Square in Canary Wharf and twice the height of the BT Telecom Tower. "'Trophy architects” are thick on the ground- a novelty for staid London architecture. Lord Foster, Lord Rogers and J ean Nouvel, a French visionary, are busy. So is Rafael Vinoly, a Uruguayan finalist in N ew York’s Ground Zero project.

    Why the rush of high-rise extravagance? P a rtly because tenants will pay more for a board room with a view. But anxiety matters, loo. The Corporation of London, the Square Mile's local authority, wants more tall buildings because it fears competition from rival financial districts-and not ju st Frankfurt and Paris. Canary Wharf in Dockl a nds has poached several big banks from the City in the past decade. The Corporation is determined to prevent that from happening again. Although the demand for office space is not strong just now, it wants to be ready with a list of approved skyscraper when the market eventually picks up. It has an ally in Ken Livingstone, London's mayor, who thinks tall buildings add to the capital's prestige.

    Yet, in streets once trod by Dick Whittington and his cat, all that history can get in the way.

English Heritage is reluctant to lose listed buildings, conservation areas and views of St Paul's Cathedral. Hence the world-class architecture. It is easier to see off heritage groups if a listed building is replaced by a scheme from Lord Rogets.

   The conservationists are fighting back, saying tall buildings-however prestigious will block views of St Paul's Cathedral and Westminster Abbey. Mr. Livingstone has proposed adding 16 city vistas to the ten protected today. But conservationists complain that the listed views will be n arro w e r. Adam Wilkinson, of Save Britain' s Heritage, says; "The guidelines are cheeky really new plans will alter their historic settings through sheer height. "

   Another difficulty for the tower crowd is that many of their plans are so "iconic" as io be impractical. Swiss Re's Gherkin (designed by Lord Foster) has been slow to find tenants because i t environmentally-friendly ventilation system a nd cigar-like outline produce an awkward shape.

   The mayor and the city authorities may be trying too hard. After losing ground to Canary Wharf by being conservative, central London is becoming ultra-modem in its architecture. If the towers aren't built, the area will suffer. If they aren't interesting, they won't win planning permission. But if the buildings become too interesting, the y risk offending conservationists and deterring tenants.

   Last month saw a new twist in the Helter-Skelter saga. The British Airports Authority and L on don City airport complained that the tower would endanger flight paths. The skyscraper may have to lose at least its top 20m. That would leave the Shard ee the undisputed tallest tower in Europe- If it ever gets built.

   13. The plans for the Shard of Gl as s have been causing disputes and debates among diff erent groups of people concerned with building and preserving buildings.

   14. The proposals to build mo re skyscrapers in London are not supported by market de mands

       for office space.

   15. Trophy architects are people who design a nd build landmark buildings for a cosmopolitan

      City and win prizes for their designs.

   16. Ken Livingston , London's mayor, believes that skyscrapers enhance a city's status in the

       world by attracting big b an ks and corporations, and thus business opportunities to it.

   17. T he newly designed tall buildings have taken due consideration of London's city skyline

       and will blend well into the cityscape..

   18 . The writer is skeptical of the plans for building the Shard and is cynical about the idea that

       tall buildings earn a city prestige.

 

   C. Gap Filling (14 points)

   Please choose the best sentence from the list after the passage to fill each of the gaps in the text.

                       Stop the world, we want to get off

    HAS the trauma of Iraq made Americans more isolationist? A new poll, released on Novembe r 17th, finds some evidence that it has. The Pew Research Centre periodically asks a sample of opinion leaders, and another sample of the general public, a barrage of questions about "America' s place in the world". Their answers are getting gloomier.

     __ 19 _ Asked whether America will succeed in establishing a stable democracy in Iraq, only 33% of journalists, 27% of academics and 13% of scientists and engineers thought it would. The general public were more optimistic-56% thought their country would eventually prevail. 20

   As for George Bush's calls for democracy in the wider Middle East, most Americans thought this was a good idea, but few thought it would succeed. The general public were divided: 22% th ought it a bad idea, 36% a good idea that would probably fail, and 34% a good idea that would probably succeed. 21

   Two-thirds of Americans thought their country was less respected than in the past. The most popular explanation was the war in Iraq. 22

   Presumably because of this, elite and regular Americans alike are feeling less g u ng-ho. _ 23 Among state and local government leaders, the proportion fell from 78% to 54%. And among the

general public, the proportion who thought that America should "mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own" rose from 30% in 2002 to 42% this year. This is comparable with the peaks of isolationist sentiment after the Vietnam War and after the cold war ended.

     24 __ As Pew's researchers admit, the opinion leaders they interviewed were mostly Democrats. But the president cannot dismiss the public's growing desire not to have to deal with the sort of people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up wedding parties. Speaking at an air force base in Alaska this week , Mr. Bush reiterated his view that America has no choice but to confront them. Islamic terrorist , he wa rned , seek "to break our will and blackmail our government into isolation". "That's not going to happen so long as I' m the President of the United States," he promised. 25 __

   A. Mr. B ush can perhaps dismiss the defeatist mood of the elite.

   B. But a dwindling number of Americans are behind him.

   C. A whopping 88% of the elite cited Iraq as on e of the main fact ors driving anti-Americmtisnt, as di d 71 % of the general public.

   D. A large m ajo r ity of the elite thought it a go o d idea that would probably fail, with the exception of military and religio u s leaders, who were more optimistic.

   E. So who is getting the best of the argument? All the signs are that the White H ouse is lo sing

      the public relations war.

   F. This is espe c ially true of the elite.

   G. All elite groups w e re less likely than they were in 1993 to say that America should be the

      most assertive of leading nations.

   H. Among the elite, only military officers were cheerier, with 64 % predicting vi ctory ".

.

II. Please read the following passage and translate the underlined parts into Cha nese.

(50 points, 5 points each)

 

   Civilizations, vast or otherwise, can always be located on a map. An essential pa rt of their character depends on the constraints or advantages of their geographical situation.

   (26) Th is , of course , will h a ve been affected for centuries or even millennia by human effort.

Every landscape b ears the traces of this continuous and cu mulative labour generation after generation contributing to the whole. So doing, humanity itself has been t ransformed by what  the French historian Jules Michelet called 'the decisive shaping of self by self' , or (as Karl Marx put it) the p ro duction of people by people'.

    (27) To discuss c ivilization is to discuss s pace, land and its contours, cl imate, vegetation, an imal species and natural or other advantages, It is also to discus s what humanity has made of these basic conditions : agriculture , stock-breeding, food, shelter, clothing, communications, indus try and so on.

( 28) The stage on which humanity’s endless dramas are played out partly determines their story-line and explains their nature. The cast will alter, but the set remain broadly the same.

   For the expert on India, Hermann Goetz, there are two essential Indias. One is humid, with heavy rainfall, lakes, marshes, forests and jungles, aquatic plants and flowers----the land of people with dark skins.(29) It contrasts with the dryer India of the Indo-Gangetic plain, plus the Deccan plateau-----the home of lighter-skinned people, many of them warlike. India as a whole, in Goetz’s view, is a debate and a tug-of-war between these two contrasting areas and peoples.

   (30) The natural and man-made eniroment, of course, cannot predetermine everything. It is not all-powerful. But it greatly affects the inherent or acquired advantages of any given situation.

   (31) To take inhere nt advantages,every civilization is born of immediate opportunities,rapidly exploited. Thus in the dawn of time , river c ivilization s flourished in the old world: Chinese civilization along the Yellow Riv er; pre-Indian along the In dus; Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian on  the  Euphrates and the Tigrist Egyptian on the Nile. A similar group of vigorous civilizations developed in Northern Europe, around the Baltic and the North Se a -not to mention the Atlantic Ocean itself. Much of the W e st and its dependencies today, in fact, are grouped around around that ocean, rather as Roman world of former times was grouped around the Mediterranean.

(32)Th ese classsic in stances reveal above all the pri me important of communications. No civilization can survive without mobility; all are enriched by trade and the stimulating impact of strangers. (33) Islam for instance, is inconceivable without the movement of its caravans across the ‘ dry seas’ of its deserts and steppes, without its expeditions in the Mediterranean and across the Indian Ocean as far as Malacca and China.

(34) Mentioning these achievements has already led us beyond the natural and immediate advantages which supposedly gave rise to civilizations. （ 35 ） To overcome the hostility of the desert or the sudden squalls of the Mediterranean, to exploit the steady winds of the Indian Ocean, or to dam a river---all that needed human effort, to enjoy advantages, or rather to create them.

 

III. Translate the following passage into English.

 

                           敞开的笼子

  这两只鸟儿原先都是野生的，我在鸟市上买了它们，我把它们请到笼子里。它们的愤怒是显而易见的，不太爱吃东西，也不叫，只是在笼子里不停地飞，冲撞着笼子。

  一年以后，它们对这个人工环境已经习惯，它们在笼子里歌唱着．显得很高兴。每天早晨六点钟，就能听见它们的歌声，它们用歌声叫醒我，和我的全家。

  有一天，单位里的同事告诉我，这种鸟儿还可以放到笼子外来养，它们不会离开笼子很远，到了晚上，会自己回到笼里。回到家我打开笼子，看见那两只鸟儿并不往外飞，它们围着笼门飞来飞去，跳跃着，好像在试探这敞开是不是真实，或者在考虑这是不是一个更大的危险。

  当它们最终确认，这确实是一种自由时，才小心翼翼地从笼子里蹦了出来。然而它们却

没有飞远，我发现，这鸟好像已经不太会飞，它们飞的高度不超过一尺。它们更擅长的是蹦，它们的翅磅不过是在帮助它们蹦得远一些，离开笼子不久，它们就又回到笼子上。它们

站在笼顶上，抬起翅膀啄着羽毛，它们的自由和不自由，原来不过是几厘米的距离。

  还没有等到傍晚，它们就又自愿回到笼子了，它们在笼子里吃着食，喝着水，互相啄着

羽毛．快乐地嬉戏着。它们对那个敞开的笼门看也不看，在这个有吃、有喝、有快乐的环境里，敞开的笼门又算得了什么呢？