寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › economist阅读写作分析--Two cheers and a jeer--04.09- ...

返回列表

查看: 3148|回复: 4

[资料分享] economist阅读写作分析--Two cheers and a jeer--04.09--westcookie [复制链接]

westcookie
UID: 2356047

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 2
寄托币: 185
注册时间: 2007-6-28
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-3-31 01:00:15 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 westcookie 于 2009-4-9 23:53 编辑

蓝色为GRE难度词汇，红色的为可以借鉴的表达，橙色为文章大致思路分析

Tim Geithner’s toxic-asset scheme will not work unlessbanks are forced to sell their problem loans

IT WAS a measure of the desperation for a plan—any plan—totackle the paralysisin the American banking system that stockmarkets soared on March 23rd when TimGeithner, the treasury secretary, detailed his proposals to purge toxicdebt from the banks’ balance-sheets. In fact, the effort to recruit privateinvestors into a government-led campaign to buy bad assets from the banks isstill, at best, half a plan. It is better thanMr Geithner’s woeful false start in February and may one day even prove to beinspired. But it will work only if the Obama administration accompanies it witha cast-iron determination to get to the bottomof America’s banking mess. So far the president hasshown little stomach for going the whole way.
（开头直接点题，并概述了Tim Geithner的建议不具备可行性的原因，为后文的层层铺述起总起作用）

As it stands, Mr Geithner’s Public-Private InvestmentProgramme looks like an ungainly political and financial fudge and far fromthe market solution the government claims it is (see article).It aims to buy $500 billion-$1 trillion of the loans and hard-to-valuesecurities that have swamped the banks’ balance-sheets since the collapse ofAmerica’s mortgage market in 2007. Ideally, the government would have raisedthat money from Congress and parked the toxic assets in a discrete “bad bank”,or offered to guarantee them. But Congress has bail-out fatigue. Bonus-bashing scores immeasurably higher withvoters than adding to the $700 billion earmarked to buy bank assets last October. Ofwhat is left, Mr Geithner has a relatively thin $100 billion for his Augeanclean-up. Beyond that there is less than $100 billion in the kitty.
（首句直接点明计划的不可实施性，紧接着针对具体的内容分析，这种论述的方式较直观，大可直接运用到AW中）

Hence the need to conjure money out of thinair, or rather the government’s off-balance-sheet equivalents—theFederal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, which may provide loansand guarantees without a word from Congress. To show that this is not wasted, thereis the figleaf of market discipline: a slug ofprivate money is supposed to ensure that hard-nosedcapitalists have enough of a stake to stop the government overpaying. But this is capitalism of the “Heads I win, tails you lose”variety. The government bears almost all the risks, while privateinvestors pocket half the rewards. If there are big pay-offs, Congress coulddecide to claw back the benefits. Forgetbail-out fatigue; the risk is class war.
（假设可能性，再以事实推翻，使得观点在论述上更加鲜明）

Hold your nose,however. Mr Geithner’s proposal is worth a try, not least because, as anyleader at the Group of 20 summit in London next week will tell you, fixingAmerican banks is one of America’s—and hence the world’s—most urgent economicpriorities. However unpalatable it is to shower public largesse on big vulture funds,one of the few ways to see if there is any residual value in all the toxicwaste left on the banks’ books is to induce someone to buy it. Without a subsidy,there are many reasons for private investors to hold back. Above all, they do nothave the same information advantages as the seller, which is only too keen tooffload the worst assets on its balance-sheet while hanging on to the goodstuff. The trouble is, the proposal barely has a hope unless banks agree tosell assets, and therein lies Mr Geithner’s unfinished task: arm-twisting them to do so. Many banks value theirassets well above the prices they would fetch in an open (albeit illiquid)market. They have incentives to keep them there: the lower the price, the morecapital they need to raise; in these capital-constrained times, that means thecloser banks are to insolvency.
（话锋一转，提出计划的可能性在于强制性，这样做扣题的同时也让人耳目一新，其中以20国峰会为例，说明美国银行的重要性）

Come on, TimBut if America wants to avoid the fate of Japan in the1990s—a lost decade of zombie banks—it is vital that its banks face reality. MrGeithner has a ready-made tool for that, about which he has been mysteriouslyquiet of late: his “stress tests” to determine whether America’s biggest bankshave enough capital. Done rigorously, the stress tests could force the banks tocome clean about their balance-sheets and lead to the forced sale of assetsinto the government’s toxic-asset programme. If a bank cannot raise the capitalto offset its losses, it should be deemed insolvent and temporarilynationalised. Mr Geithner’s proposal is part of a process that could lead tomore certainty—even healing—in America’s banking system. But only if he has thegumption to turn his half-plan into a whole one.

（以日本银行危机为例，警示美国要避免重蹈覆辙，进而再次重申计划需要进一步完善）

回应
0

使用道具举报

飞天凡凡
UID: 2370537

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 140
注册时间: 2007-7-27
精华: 0
帖子: 2

沙发

发表于 2009-3-31 14:01:48 |只看该作者

:lol真好！

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

westcookie
UID: 2356047

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 2
寄托币: 185
注册时间: 2007-6-28
精华: 0
帖子: 1

板凳

发表于 2009-4-4 23:52:11 |只看该作者

economist阅读写作分析--The meaning of freedom--04.04

本帖最后由 westcookie 于 2009-4-5 00:28 编辑

The meaning of freedom
Apr 2nd 2009
Why freedom of speech must include the right to “defame” religions

（蓝色为GRE难度词汇，红色的为可以借鉴的表达，橙色为文章大致思路分析）

AT FIRST glance, the resolution on “religious defamation” adopted by the UN’s Human Rights Council on March 26th, mainly at the behest of Islamic countries, reads like another piece of harmless verbiage churned out by a toothless international bureaucracy. What is wrong with saying, as the resolution does, that some Muslims faced prejudice in the aftermath of September 2001? But a closer look at the resolution’s language, and the context in which it was adopted (with an unholy trio of Pakistan, Belarus and Venezuela acting as sponsors), makes clear that bigger issues are at stake.
开头便对UN通过的[反对宗教诋毁]表示不屑，转而提出争议在于决议从语言上到背景上都有问题。这样的开头比较简洁，而且最后一句话为后文的论述起总起作用。

The resolution says “defamation of religions” is a “serious affront to human dignity” which can “restrict the freedom” of those who are defamed, and may also lead to the incitement of violence. But there is an insidious blurring of categories here, which becomes plain when you compare this resolution with the more rigorous language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 in a spirit of revulsion over the evils of fascism. This asserts the right of human beings in ways that are now entrenched in the theory and (most of the time) the practice of liberal democracy. It upholds the right of people to live in freedom from persecution and arbitrary arrest; to hold any faith or none; to change religion; and to enjoy freedom of expression, which by any fair definition includes freedom to agree or disagree with the tenets of any religion.
In other words, it protects individuals—not religions, or any other set of beliefs. And this is a vital distinction. For it is not possible systematically to protect religions or their followers from offence without infringing the right of individuals.
这一段直接针对决议上提出的诋毁宗教将导致甚至于战争提出疑议，并以1948年提出的人权决议为例，指出反对宗教诋毁无法做到在不侵害人权的前提下保护宗教
What exactly is it the drafters of the council resolution are trying to outlaw? To judge from what happens in the countries that lobbied for the vote—like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan—they use the word “defamation” to mean something close to the crime of blasphemy, which is in turn defined as voicing dissent from the official reading of Islam. In many of the 56 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has led the drive to outlaw “defamation”, both non-Muslims and Muslims who voice dissent (even in technical matters of Koranic interpretation) are often victims of just the sort of persecution the 1948 declaration sought to outlaw. That is a real human-rights problem. And in the spirit of fairness, laws against blasphemy that remain on the statute books of some Western countries should also be struck off; only real, not imaginary, incitement of violence should be outlawed.
这一段对提出决议者的真正意图表示质疑，并指出决议中的用词“诋毁”接近与“亵渎”，而那些赞成的国家大多都是1984年决议所要坚决剔除的对象。末句，作者指出这是人权问题，也只有真正的暴力应该被禁止，而不是想象中的。
Good manners, please; not censorship
In much of the Muslim world, the West’s reaction to the attacks of September 2001, including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, has been misread as an attack on Islam itself. This is more than regrettable; it is dangerous. Western governments, and decent people everywhere, should try to ensure that the things they say do not entrench religious prejudice or incite acts of violence; being free to give offence does not mean you are wise to give offence. But no state, and certainly no body that calls itself a Human Rights Council, should trample on the right to free speech enshrined in the Universal Declaration. And in the end, given that all faiths have undergone persecution at some time, few people have more to gain from the protection of free speech than sincere religious believers.
这一段，解释造成这样的局面是由于伊斯兰对西方国家的行为的误解，因而，西方国家应该明智的[冒犯]。同时，作者还指出尽管各种信仰或多或少都会受到诋毁，但是人们受益于真诚的信仰者永远都会多于言论自由的保护
The United States, with its tradition of combining strong religious beliefs and religious freedom, is well placed to make that case. Having taken a politically risky decision (see article) to re-engage with the Human Rights Council and seek election as one of its 47 members, America should now make the defence of real religious liberty one of its highest priorities.
末段指出作为一个有融合宗教信仰和宗教自由传统的国家，美国应把对宗教自由的保护看成自己的头等大事。

写作思路总结：
这一篇是一篇挺工整的ISSUE，首段直接陈述自己的观点，并列出原因有二，后两段均将这两个原因铺陈开来，其中第二段以1948年的决议为例，第三段以逻辑顺序层层递进。第四段，给出当今的背景，解释之所有会通过这样的决议的原因，并指出如何改进，并对美国寄以期望。

使用道具举报

westcookie
UID: 2356047

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 2
寄托币: 185
注册时间: 2007-6-28
精华: 0
帖子: 1

地板

发表于 2009-4-7 00:02:01 |只看该作者

RE: economist阅读写作分析--Madonna and no child--04.06--westcookie

Madonna and no childApr 4th 2009
International adoptions are not always for the best
MADONNA seems like a person used to getting her own way. So the popstar must have been dismayed when a court in Malawi refused to herrequest to adopt a three-year-old girl, Chifundo James. A judge ruledon Friday April 3rd that the adoption of Chifundo could not go aheadbecause Madonna had not fulfilled residency requirements. The last timeMadonna tried to adopt a Malawian child she met with more success and aheap of criticism.
By plucking David Banda from grinding poverty in Malawi in 2006 sheprovoked mixed reactions. Some praised the singer for offering a childan escape from a life of misery. Others suggested that the pop queenmight have used her wealth and stardom to bypass usual procedures andjump the queue. Detractors also suggested that it was wrong to takeDavid away from his country of birth and his remaining family. Thecriticisms grew louder when it emerged that David was not, in fact, anorphan.
That circumstance is not particularly uncommon（双重否定句的运用）. Children given upfor adoption often do have a surviving parent but one who cannotprovide adequate care. David’s father was still alive but gave him upto an orphanage where he hoped his offspring would have a better life.
开头以麦当娜的敢作敢为与收养受挫形成鲜明对比，并引出麦当娜上一任的成功收养，由于涉及到养子的亲生父亲尚在，而备受争议。
According to Unicef, the UN children’s fund, the number of familiesfrom rich countries wanting to adopt children from poor countries hasgrown substantially in the past 30 years. Demand is strong, and thereis little shortage of children who need additional help. In 2005 Unicefestimated that there were 132m children who had lost at least oneparent in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean.Around 13m of these had lost both parents, although most of them livedwith extended family.
描述现状：需要收养和被收养的家庭和孤儿的数量呈上升趋势。

But difficulties abound. Parents (or would-be parents) typicallywant to adopt a healthy, young, orphan, usually a small baby. Olderchildren, or those who suffer chronic illnesses, are not in demand.Some countries do have many young orphans. For example in China, afterdecades of a “one-child” policy that put a great premium on malechildren, huge numbers of girls are available for adoption. But Chinamakes it difficult to whisk its daughters away. Instead manyprospective parents go to countries such as Guatemala or Vietnam, wherethe adoption process has, in the past at least, been easier.
解释之所以无法形成供需平衡的原因在于：收养家庭只想要健康，年幼的儿童，而有的国家，如中国，收养条件过于苛刻，以至于收养家庭只能转向越南等国家。

Governments are understandably uneasy about outsiders removing theircitizens. And as demand for children to adopt has grown, so haveexamples of abuse, including cases of children who have been abductedor parents who have been coerced or bribed. The absence of effectiveinternational regulation also allows middlemen to profit from thedemand for children to adopt.
对前一段国家的限制收养表示理解，但同时指出，相关法律的缺失和呈上升趋势的需求导致了虐待，绑架和趋盈利性的产生。

The Hague Convention on Inter Country Adoptions is intended toregulate international adoptions. It states that these can only goahead if the parents’ consent, where applicable, has been obtainedwithout any kind of payment or compensation. Costs and expenses can bepaid, and a reasonable fee may go to the adoption agency involved, butnothing more. The document is clear: wads of cash may not change handsin return for poor motherless mites.
举例有相关法律出台

These rules look fine on paper but are difficult to enforce（过渡句）.Incidents abound of vulnerable children being whisked away with profitin mind rather than their wellbeing. In 2007, Zoe’s Ark, a Frenchcharity, was accused of kidnapping more than 100 children from Chad andSudan for adoption in France. In 2008, a scam was uncovered in whichchildren in India were kidnapped, given new identities and dispatchedto new parents in the West.
反驳法律难以实施，通过07，08的绑架事件证明。

The process of adoption is difficult to police. When corruptionbecomes clear in the adoption process in one country, and agencies areshut down, those involved look around for another country that is notso fussy. The result is that individual countries increasingly toughentheir laws on adoption. Ensuring that only legitimate candidates foradoption find their way to the West will be tricky when such powerfulhuman instincts as those of the childless seeking a baby are involved（难句啊。。）.But getting more countries to sign up to The Hague Convention wouldprobably help.
解释收养的规划完善问题困难重重，并给出建议：要让更多的国家加入Hague Convention。

总体思路分析：
麦当娜收养被拒——之前的成功案例也备受争议——国际收养的现状——解释原因——相关法律出台受挫——进一步解释原因，并给出建议
这一篇是按逻辑顺序写的，层层递进，从麦当娜的收养受挫进一步深化到国际收养问题的缺陷，中间不乏例证理证，过渡句的处理更是自然衔接～

使用道具举报

westcookie
UID: 2356047

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 2
寄托币: 185
注册时间: 2007-6-28
精华: 0
帖子: 1

5楼

发表于 2009-4-9 23:53:12 |只看该作者

RE: economist阅读写作分析--Two cheers and a jeer--04.09--westcookie

Two cheers and a jeerApr 8th 2009
Most Americans like having a leader whom foreigners adore. But some wish he was feared a bit more
AFTER Barack Obama’s first long jaunt abroad as president, Americansare in two minds. Some are delighted that so many foreigners love him.Others fret, like Machiavelli, that it is often better to be fearedthan loved, and that the people who ought to fear America don’t take MrObama seriously.

Everywhere you go, optimists note, Mr Obama is more popular than hispredecessor. European leaders jostle to be snapped standing next tohim. Star-struck crowds strain their necks for a glimpse of his wife.At the G20 summit in London last week, the world’s rich nations ralliedbehind him to tackle the global financial crisis. Mr Obama iswell-received even in Muslim countries such as Turkey, where GeorgeBush would struggle to fill a single room with friendly faces. All thisgoodwill must be in America’s interest.

So far, the optimists form a sizeable majority. Pundits lauded MrObama’s performance in Europe. Public approval for his handling offoreign policy rose from 54% in February to 61% at the end of March,according to Gallup. These are impressive numbers. But the same pollfound that disapproval of his handling of foreign policy had also goneup by six points, from 22% to 28%. Only the “don’t knows” declined. AsMr Obama starts to have a track record, more Americans are formingopinions about it.

It is all very well, say the sceptics, for Mr Obama to make airypromises about everyone standing together for “the right of peopleeverywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century”. But his mainpolicy proposal towards that end—the vision of a world free of nuclearweapons—is “a dangerous fantasy”, said Newt Gingrich, a formerRepublican speaker of the House of Representatives, in an online chatwith readers of Politico, a newspaper.

On April 5th in Prague, Mr Obama reiterated a campaign promise tohold talks with Russia to reduce both American and Russian nuclearstockpiles, to push for a global nuclear test ban and to set up aninternational nuclear fuel bank to help with peaceful nuclear-energyprogrammes. The same day, North Korea, which has already made at leastone illegal nuclear bomb, fired a test missile over Japan.

Though the missile crashed into the sea, many Republicans think itilluminated Mr Obama’s naiveté. The problem is not the great powerswith nuclear stockpiles, they say, but rogue regimes such as NorthKorea and Iran. Hawks scoff that Mr Obama approaches such rogues withfine words but no stick. He promises that North Korea’s treaty-breakingwill have consequences, but so far these have consisted mostly ofineffectual scolding.

The conservative critique of Mr Obama is that he is Jimmy Carterredux: a woolly idealist who thinks he can sweet-talk bad guys intobehaving. While he pursues talks with Iran, Republicans fret, Iran’sleaders chuckle behind their beards and carry on enriching uranium. Formany conservatives, the defining image of Mr Obama’s European tour wasnot the adoring crowds but the way America’s new president bowed beforethe king of Saudi Arabia. Bloggers juxtaposed his cursory nod toBritain’s Queen Elizabeth with the deep bow he gave to the dictatorialruler of a far less reliable ally.

Such complaints reflect increasing polarisation. A Pew poll thismonth found that the gap between Mr Obama’s early approval ratingsamong Democrats (88%) and Republicans (27%) was wider than that of anypresident in the past four decades. But since the number of Republicansis dwindling, that still leaves Mr Obama with a healthy level ofsupport. For example, 81% of Americans agree with his goal of improvingrelations with the Muslim world, and 65% trust him to pursue that goalin a way that is “about right”, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll this week. (Meanwhile, roughly one American in ten still believes, incorrectly, that Mr Obama is a Muslim.)

Most Americans also reckon that, despite his touchy-feely manner,their new president is tough enough. His surprise visit to Iraq onApril 7th attracted favourable headlines. Nearly two-thirds ofAmericans now believe the war there is winnable. Most think Mr Obama isdoing a good job in Iraq, and a plurality think his plan to withdrawmost American troops by the end of 2010 is about right.

Americans are less confident, however, that things are going well inAfghanistan. Many view Mr Obama’s plan to send more American forcesthere as a necessary evil. By 51% to 41%, they would rather concentrateon crushing the Taliban militarily than rebuilding the Afghan economy.Conservatives note that, despite Mr Obama’s popularity abroad,America’s allies are sending precious few troops to help him do this.

One or two aspects of Mr Obama’s foreign policy are unpopular athome. The attempts of his secretary of homeland security to replace theword “terrorism” with “man-caused disasters” attracted much ridicule.More seriously, Americans disapprove of Mr Obama’s plan to close theprison at Guantánamo Bay by 50% to 44%. But since it is unclear what hewill do with the inmates—he has left open the possibility of detainingthe most dangerous ones indefinitely—that could change. Even lesspopular is Mr Obama’s lifting of the ban on federal aid for groups,such as Planned Parenthood, which provide abortions or advise aboutthem in foreign countries. Only 35% of Americans approve of this, with58% opposed.

For the most part, however, Mr Obama’s foreign policies run with thegrain of public opinion. For example, he proposes a slight thawing ofrelations with Cuba .Most Americans have long favoured full normalisation. An embargopersists only because its advocates are more passionate than itsopponents, but that too is changing. Cuban-Americans who fled FidelCastro’s dictatorship for the barrios of Miami still favoursanctions, but their children have long been less sure about them. Andsince the diehards seldom vote Democratic anyway, Mr Obama may seelittle risk in upsetting them.

There are even fewer risks in Mr Obama’s recent announcement that hemay send extra troops to the Mexican border to curb violence by druggangs. Alarmed by sensational television coverage—for example, a CNNcorrespondent breathlessly asked a Mexican gangster how much it wouldcost to assassinate someone in America—85% of Americans support thisidea.

In general, Americans are comfortable with Mr Obama’s preference fortalking to troublesome foreigners, rather than blacklisting them. Butnot if he starts talking to the guys who once sheltered al-Qaeda. AnABC poll last month found that 53% of Americans would opposenegotiating with the Taliban even if they agreed to suspend attacks onAmerican and Afghan forces. And Americans have little faith in globaltalking-shops: nearly two-thirds think the UN does a poor job oftackling the problems it faces.

jaunt:a short trip for pleasure
fret:to worry about something
jostle:to push or knock against someone in a crowd
laud:praise someone or something
scoff:to laugh at a person or idea
juxtapose:to put things together, especially things that are not normally together, in order to compare them or to make something new

使用道具举报