上海外國語大學(xué)翻譯碩士真題

1、以下是上外 2010 年翻譯碩士（ MTI ）考試的真題，貼出來你看看吧【翻譯碩士二外】一、完形填空（全文錄入，題目省略）During the first many decades of this nation' s existence, the United States wasa wide-open, dynamic country with a rapidly expanding economy. It was also a country that tolerated a large amount of cruelty and pain poor people livingin

2、 misery, workers suffering from exploitation.Over the years, Americans decided they wanted a little more safety and security. This is what happens as nations grow wealthier; they use money to buy civilization.Occasionally, our ancestors found themselves in a sweet spot. They could pass legislation t

3、hat brought security but without a cost to vitality. But adults know that this situation is rare. In the real w orld, there ' s usually a tr-aodffe. The unregulated market wants to direct capital to the productive and the young. Welfare policies usually direct resources to the vulnerable and the

4、 elderly. Most social welfare legislation, even successful legislation, siphons money from the former to the latter.Early in this health care reform process, many of us thought we were in that magical sweet spot. We could extend coverage to the uninsured but also improve the system overall to lower

5、costs. That is, we thought it would be possible to reduce the suffering of the vulnerable while simultaneously squeezing money out of the wasteful system and freeing it up for more productive uses.That ' s what the management gurus call a win -win.It hasn ' t worked out that way. Thbeills be

6、fore Congress would almost certainly ease the anxiety of the uninsured, those who watch with terror as their child or spouse grows ill, who face bankruptcy and ruin.And the bills would probably do it without damaging the care the rest of us receive. In every place where reforms have been tried from

7、Massachusetts to Switzerland people come to cherish their new benefits. The new plans become politically untouchable.But, alas, there would be trade-offs. Instead of reducing costs, the bills in Congress would probably raise them. They would mean that more of the nation ' s wealth would be sipho

8、ned off from productive uses and shifted into a still wasteful health care system.The authors of these bills have tried to foster efficiencies. The Senate bill would initiate several interesting experiments designed to make the system more effective giving doctors incentives to collaborate, rewardin

9、g hospitals that provide quality care at lower cost. It' s possible that some of theseexperiments will bloom into potent systemic reforms.But the general view among independent health care economists is that these changes will not fundamentally bend the cost curve. The system after reform will l

10、ook as it does today, only bigger and more expensive.Rather than pushing all of the new costs onto future generations, as past governments have done, the Democrats have admirably agreed to raise taxes. Over the next generation, the tax increases in the various bills could funnel trillions of dollars

11、 from the general economy into the medical system.Moreover, the current estimates almost certainly understate the share of the nation ' s wealth that will have to be shifted. In these bills, the present Congress pledges that future Congresses will impose painful measures to cut Medicare payments

12、 and impose efficiencies. Future Congresses rarely live up to these pledges. Somebody screams Rationing! II and there is a bipartisan rush to kill even the most tepid cost-saving measure. After all, if the current Congress, with pride of a uthorship, couldn 't reduce costs, why should we expect

13、that future Congresses will?The bottom line is that we face a brutal choice.Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untou

14、chable promise on top of the many such promises we've already made. Americawould be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history, vitality or security. We can debate this or that prov

15、ision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don't get stupefied by technical detaTihlsis.debate is about values.二、閱讀理解，回答問題Obama Loses a RoundWhile the jury is still out on what President Obama' s China visit has achievedfor the long term, the president has most decid

16、edly lost the war of symbolism in his first close encounter with China.In status-conscious China, symbolism and protocol play a role that is larger than life. U.S. diplomatic blunders could reinforce Beijing' s mindset that blatantinformation control works, and that a rising China can trump univ

17、ersal values of open, accountable government.During Mr. Obama ' s visit, the Chinese outmaneuvered the Americans in all public events, from the disastrous town hall meeting in Shanghai to the stunted press conference in Beijing. In characteristic manner, the Chinese tried to shut out the public,

18、 while the U.S. unwittingly cooperated.The final image of President Obama in China that circulated around the world is telling: A lone man walking up the steep slope of the Great Wall. The picture is in stark contrast to those of other U.S. presidents who had their photographs taken at the Great Wal

19、l surrounded by flag-waving children or admiring citizens. Maybe Mr. Obama wanted a quiet moment for himself before returning home. But a president ' s first visit to the wall is a ritual thanteeds to be properly framed. Mr. Obama could have waited until the next visit, when he could bring the f

20、irst lady and the children. Instead, he went ahead by himself to pay tribute to China ' s ancient culture. In return, the Chinese offered nothing, no pop ular receptions, not even the companionship of a senior Chinese leader.The trouble for the U.S. started at the town hall meeting two days earl

21、ier amore scripted event than those organized with students for earlier U.S. presidents. There was no real dialogue, as a programmed audience, most of them Communist League Youth members, asked coached questions.The Chinese also rejected the U.S. request for live national coverage and defaulted on a

22、 promise to live-stream the meeting at X, the online version of China ' s s-toawtened news agency. Mr. Obama scored a point when he managed to address the issue of Internet freedom after the U.S. ambassador, Jon Huntsman, fielded him the question from a Chinese netizen submitted online.Meanwhile

23、, Chinese officials garnered from the meeting generous quotes from Mr. Obama affirming China' s achievements and America's expressions ofgood will, which were turned into glowing headlines for the Chinese media. In this round of the propaganda skirmish, the U.S. scored one point while China

24、reaped a handful.Mr. Obama was similarly shut out from addressing the public in Beijing. At the Beijing press conference, President Hu Jintao and President Obama read prepared statements and would not take questions from reporters . This was an historic meeting between the two leaders, and journalis

25、ts should have had the opportunity to ask questions, to probe beyond the statements,II protestedScott McDonald, the president of China's Foreign Correspondents Club, but tono avail.In a final dash to break through the information blockade, the Obama team offered an exclusive interview to Souther

26、n Weekend, China's most feistynewspaper, based in Guangzhou. Once again, journalists' questions wereprogrammed and the paper censored. In protest, the paper prominently displayed vast white spaces on the first and second page of the edition that carried the interview. Propaganda officials ar

27、e investigating this act of defiance.Only the Obama team knows for sure how they allowed themselves to be outmaneuvered. Unwittingly, the U.S. helped to produce a package of faux public events.Pun dits argued that the visitors were not supposed to impose theAmerica nwayI on China and that America ne

28、eds to respect Chinese practices. The argument is both patronizing and condescending. Increasingly, the Chinese public has been clamoring for greater official transparency and accountability, while the Chinese government has been making progress on these fronts. No one in his right mind would ask Mr

29、. Obama to lecture Beijing on human rights.But the Chinese public deserves better accounting, no less than Americans citizens.To their credit, U.S. officials did try to get their message out online. But it was the Chinese bloggers who were most active in challenging official information control. The

30、y at least fought the good fight with growing confidence, a fight the Americans seem unable to wage effectively.三、寫作。題目是 waste not ， want not 英語翻譯基礎(chǔ)】一、名詞解釋MDGS Millennium Development Goals 千禧年發(fā)展計(jì)劃 Ban Ki-moon 潘基文 國務(wù)卿 Secretary of State 雷曼兄弟 (Lehman Brothers) 次貸危機(jī) subprime lending crisis 西部大開發(fā)戰(zhàn)略 stra

31、tegy of western development二、英譯中 China's bubblesA lot of things in China carry a whiff of excess. The cost of garlic is among them: wholesale prices have almost quadrupled since March. A halving of the planting area last year, and belief in the bulb's powers to ward off swine flu, provide so

32、me justification for the surge. But anecdotes of unbridled trading activity in Jinxiang county, home to China's largest garlic plant, suggest that the most likely cause is the most obviousthe abundant liquidity swilli ngthrough the system. New loans in China may top Rmb10,000bn this year, double the run-rate of the preceding years; 2010 should bring another Rmb7-8,000bn.In the week that Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, said asset bubbles were a cost worth paying for reviving growth through