1006G[REBORN FROM THE ASHES组]备考日记 by 中原527--战胜自己

中原527UID：2707367

一开电脑就看到草木的选人贴了，一排一排地看心都凉了
到最后一个才出现我的名字吓我一跳...
蹦蹦跳跳的心终于可以放回心窝窝里了

中原527UID：2707367

第十四期
Further Suggestions for Using Passive and Active Voices

1. Avoid starting a sentence in active voice and then shifting to passive.避免在一个句子里从主动态突然转到被动态

Unnecessary shift in voice	Revised
Many customers in the restaurant found the coffee too bitter to drink, but it was still ordered frequently.	Many customers in the restaurant found the coffee too bitter to drink, but they still ordered it frequently.
He tried to act cool when he slipped in the puddle, but he was still laughed at by the other students.	He tried to act cool when he slipped in the puddle, but the other students still laughed at him.

2. Avoid dangling modifiers （垂悬修饰语，啥语法啊？貌似草木贴前面提过...)caused by the use of passive voice. A dangling modifier is a word or phrase that modifies a word not clearly stated in the sentence.

Dangling modifier with passive voice	Revised
To save time, the paper was written on a computer. (Who was saving time? The paper?)	To save time, Kristin wrote the paper on a computer.
Seeking to lay off workers without taking the blame, consultants were hired to break the bad news. Who was seeking to lay off workers? The consultants?)	Seeking to lay off workers without taking the blame, the CEO hired consultants to break the bad news.

3. Don't trust the grammar-checking programs in word-processing software. Many grammar checkers flag all passive constructions, but you may want to keep some that are flagged. Trust your judgment, or ask another human being for their opinion about which sentence sounds best.(呵呵，我就没怎么信过WORD文档的语法修改，不过连WORD都查出来的语法问题，自己得好好琢磨琢磨)

Verbs- Voice and MoodActive and Passive voice:Verbs in the active voice show the subject acting. Verbs in the passive voice show something else acting on the subject. Most writers consider the active voice more forceful and tend to stay away from passives unless they really need them.

ACTIVE: Tim killed the chicken hawk.

PASSIVE: The chicken hawk was killed by Tim.

Indicative, Imperative, and Subjunctive Mood:Most verbs we use are in the indicative mood, which indicates a fact or opinion:

Examples:
·He was here.
·I am hungry.
·She will bring her books.

Some verbs are in the imperative mood（祈使式[语气]）, which expresses commands or requests. Though it is not stated, the understood subject of imperative sentences is you.

Examples:
·Be here at seven o'clock. (Understood: You be here at seven o'clock.)
·Cook me an omelette. (Understood: You cook me an omelette.)
·Bring your books with you. (Understood: You bring your books with you.)

When verbs show something contrary to fact, they are in the subjunctive mood.

When you express a wish or something that is not actually true, use the past tense or past perfect tense; when using the verb 'to be' in the subjunctive, always use were rather than was:



Examples:（前面一期的语法已讲过）
·If he were here... (Implied: ...but he's not.)
·I wish I had something to eat. (Implied: ...but I don't.)
·It would be better if you had brought your books with you. (Implied: ...but you haven't brought them.)

INDICATIVE: I need some help.
IMPERATIVE:Help me!
SUBJUNCTIVE: If I were smart, I'd call for help.

中原527UID：2707367

argument段落间的让步关系。

我是一个学计算机的人，从小学开始就接触程序设计，一直到现在。所以我非常崇尚的就是计算机的“绝对逻辑”，什么意思？就是说无论你从什么地方划一道线，上面的程序和下面的程序，必然是绝对的紧耦合关系，去掉任何一句话，都会导致最终结果的偏差。我想，在某些方面，尤其是逻辑方面来说，写议论文，和写程序，是相通的。

当谈到段落之间的逻辑结构的时候，不得不提到的八股是著名的“让步理论”。现在的AW市场（原谅我用市场一词来形容），放眼望去，铺天盖地的让步，甚至有的童鞋，除了让步以外什么都不会了，开头-第一段-让步第二段-让步第三段-结尾成了套路，我估计这种情况，已经泛滥到让ETS谈让步色变的地步了，是啊，无论是谁，看了一整天的even if/even though/even/granted that…都会觉得恶心想吐，更不用说你看上10年试试？

无用质疑，XDF的课堂和老师在给新一代的祖国栋梁的洗脑上，做出了不可磨灭的贡献。说到让步这个论证方式，我想最开始的源头应当是来自一篇ETS的官方Argument， 在The country Myria这篇6分范文里面，作者采用了大量的让步论证方式来完善自己的逻辑结构，进而让人们看到了一种希望的曙光：这样写，我也会！我也能拿6分！于是在XDF某些知名教授的推崇下，让步论证似乎变成了一种万能的钥匙，能够打开一切无法解决的问题。 某些名师干脆就大声疾呼：你就不停的让步就行了，让步是最有效，最快捷，最方便，最可以量产的逻辑，有人能够通过让步拿6，你也可以！而且，出于它的其他一些好处：几乎前半句就是原封不动的重复上面提到过的话，方便了很多以“字数至上”的考生在短时间内显著的凑出可观的字数，让步如今泛滥成灾也就不足为奇了。

但是，童鞋们啊，当被漫天的速成，捷径误导的同时，你们真的就静下心来，想过让步到底是个什么东西了么？我曾经问过某个同学：“什么是让步？”他的答案让我好笑：“就是even though之类的从句就行了”我想，很多考生的想法也就是如此。 功利！ Even though可以表现出让步，所以让步就是even though了么？ 我是人，人就是我么？ 根本就不知道让步的内涵，能够去合理的用它么？当ETS普遍打出3分，3.5分的成绩的时候，中国人的通病就是不但不从自己找原因，反而开始漫骂ETS，甚至有这种话语在其中：“我I写了700字，A写了550+，凭什么我只能拿3.5？”感情这个考试不是考逻辑，不是考思维，而是考抄录速度了？

什么是让步？按照我浅薄的个人理解，让步应该是一种：以对方的观点为基础，推导出深层的逻辑谬误，或者直接归谬否定原命题的辩证的论证方式。所以我们必须明确的两点就是：

1让步必须建立在你要批驳者的观点上，对于argument来说，就是作者的观点上。我见过有的文章，上来就让步接让步，当时我就很怀疑：作者真的有那么多话可以来给你让步么？结果果不其然，让步两次以后他就开始 even though + 自己以前的推论, 然后推到离题十万八千里的地方去了，偏偏本人还感觉良好，认为是神来之作。从这里我们可以看出：二次让步一般来说是不合逻辑的，因为第二次让步的东西，实际上是你第一次让步后得出的结论，而不是作者本来的意思。

2让步的作用是为了找出更加隐晦，更加深层的逻辑谬误，或者直接归谬否定。对于argument来说，就是从外表错误推断到本质错误的一个过程。有的童鞋不管三七二十一，不管这个逻辑到底有没有深层谬误（实际上，大部分的推论，是没有深层逻辑谬误的），先让步了再说。结果呢？自然是ETS杀你没商量。
可能光是理论上的东西感觉很深奥，那么我通过例子来说明：（随机选取，感谢janettaowei童鞋。）

61
The following appeared in a report by the School District of Eyleria.
"Nationally, the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) is 1:5. Educators indicate that this is very good ratio. This means that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. In Eyleria's K-12 schools, the ratio of computers to students is 1:7. This number is sufficient to ensure that all of Eyleria's students, by the time they graduate from high school, will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Thus, there is no reason to spend any of the schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years."

Janettaowei童鞋的中间三段论证过程是这样的（ts已经取出）:
First, since the ratio of computers to students is 1:7 in Eyleria, which is lower than the national average level, it is possible that the computers there may be insufficient.（这段对我做例子没啥用，可以不用看这句ts）

Second, even if the number of computers is enough at present time, there is no guarantee it would be sufficient when they graduate from high school.

Last but not least, even Eyleria does not need to buy any computers, there still a lot of money need to be spent on computer.

好了，我们可以很清楚的看出他/她是用了两个让步来组织段落的内部结构的，接下来按照我一般的逻辑思维方式，我们把这个argument的逻辑联系理顺一下，恩，这是一篇相对比较难的逻辑连接了：

National average ratio(已给) à 所有学生日常都能够用电脑（推论1）

某个地区的 average ratio 1：7à number is sufficient(推论2，注意这个推论是三无：无调查，无证据，无理由) à 学生fully proficient in the use of computer(推论3)

推论3 à 1:7就足够（推论4，注意这里的循环论证，实际上，是1：7的ratio推出的推论3，然而作者继续把这个推论3作为推出1:7这个ratio的理由）+ 推论1（1：5也足够）à 1：7这个ratio是合理的（推论5）

最后由推论5 à 结论

从我给的这个逻辑图中可以明显的看出， jane童鞋的论证偏题了，原因是什么？我想，让步的滥用绝对是罪魁祸首之一，我们来看他的第二论证段的TS：Second, even if the number of computers is enough at present time, there is no guarantee it would be sufficient when they graduate from high school.

按照我所述的让步的两大最基本原则，分析一下这个让步为什么会导致偏题：

1 让步必须建立在你要批驳者的观点上。 在这篇argument里面，作者在什么地方提到过：the number of computers is enough at present time? 这个仅仅是第一个论证段，jane童鞋自己的推理而已，这个让步的错误性直接指向了一种后果：否定掉你自己前面写的东西，搬起石头砸了自己的脚，而不是作者的脚。

2 让步必须揭示更深层次的逻辑谬误。 蓝色字体的句子，是主句，也是由让步而衍生出来的逻辑问题，然而句话揭示的东西，不仅仅是一个虚幻的推论，更重要的是，它跟让步的从句的关系是并列关系，而不是递进关系！这才是当我们读到：“第二，即使电脑数量目前足够，也没有证据表明它们以后会足够。”感觉荒谬的真正原因所在！换言之，如果没有递进的逻辑深度关系，用让步就是一种可笑的举动。

至于jane童鞋的第三个让步，那就更不用说，一步步让下来，直接已经不知道离题多少万里去了，有兴趣的童鞋们可以自己用两大基本原则来分析一下这句话，我在这里托个大，当成课后作业了。

现在，让我们回过头来看看那篇被誉为经典让步的6分范文：

TEST 1: ARGUMENT TOPIC
The country Myria, which charges fees for the use of national parks, reports little evidence of environmental damage. This strongly suggests that for the country Illium, the best way to preserve public lands is to charge people more money when they are using national parks and wilderness areas for activities with heavy environmental impact. By collecting fees from people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations.

它的让步过程：
Second, even if we concede that there is in fact negligible amounts of environmental damage, this does not necessarily mean that by collecting money from individuals who are using the parks one can use these funds to maintain the land for future generations.

Finally, even if we accept that the situation in Myria is successful in that country, we cannot assume that this same scenario will work in Illium.

从我标注的颜色上，童鞋们，你们看到了么，什么是真正的满足第一条让步原则？经典让步的所有的让步条件，都是从原文里面抓出来的，目的是为了深刻的批驳原文的其他错误。现在，大家回过头去想一想，你们的让步论证，到底是一个什么过程？有没有注意到这个原则，还是随便发挥自由发扬最后离题万里自尤不知？如果是，那就要赶紧改过来了！

然后我们retrospect第二个经典让步原则：但是在此之前，我希望能够把段落的逻辑理一下，这个逻辑链很简单，典型的地区性对比：

Myria 的 Charge fees这条措施（已给）à 钱都用在环境上了（推论1） à
little environmental damage(推论2) à 这种方法对任何环境下都有效（推论3）+Illium也面临相似的问题（已给）à Illium也应该采纳这种方法(结论)

接下来让我们回到第二条原则：递进式逻辑，或者直接归谬否定。
这篇范文的作者在某种层次上将这条原则运用的炉火纯青，很明显的，他的第一个让步是为了深入的驳斥上面的逻辑链的第二个箭头：这种方法有效。 而第二个让步则是为了直接把结论归谬，从而否定作者的推理，这里我不说太多，因为很多东西都已经在前面说的很清楚了，我希望童鞋们自己能够在这个地方去想一想，毕竟只有自己想明白的东西，才是自己的东西。

另外我还要从自己专业的角度来说一下这个让步的东西，实际上我一直认为，逻辑是相通的，不论你做什么工作。因此我认为，这种让步的论证方式，其实是很类似于算法当中的“回溯逻辑”。在计算机算法里面，回溯是一个很容易简化程序设计过程的一种方法，再长的东西，都能够简单成一个步奏以内的长度，因为不停的改变参数，重复调用它就行了。然而它的用途，非常非常的窄，除开纯理论以外，根本就没有地方用得到回溯这种东西。为什么？因为它的使用条件限制了一切：首先必须是链式逻辑，其次在链式逻辑当中，绝对不能够有其他的因素掺杂在里面。所以说当遇到我们生活当中常见的“剪枝，分叉，加权”等等逻辑的时候，它就是一个彻底的废物，如果强行的使用它，会出现很多的错误。

我想，让步作为一个类似的回溯机制，实际上也有着它自身能够使用的逻辑环境，绝不是像新东方类型的教导：什么万能的公式大家套就是了，如果这句话是真的，那么为什么没有见到杂志报刊论文辩论上张口就是“即使…”? 事实上，范文为什么能够用让步？因为它的逻辑，就是一个最典型的链式逻辑，每一步的推论，都是递进式的，这个时候，让步才有效的发挥了它的作用。但是如果不恰当的运用在其他的逻辑环境里，就会和计算机的计算结果一样，荒谬可笑！

退一步海阔天空，这句话，不仅仅能够真实的反映出让步的作用，借这个题目，我也希望能够提醒各位：当逻辑链无法使用让步的时候，往上面焦头烂额的硬套不是一个明智的决定，退一步，你会发现：海阔天空。

中原527UID：2707367

在批改草木布置的30篇阿狗时，看到了2篇666的批改，在没看她的批改前，我是认为没啥好说了，但看了她的批语后再回头看看那篇文章，逻辑漏洞百出，再后来的文章慢慢地摸出点门路来了，这篇是关于常识在阿狗里面怎么用。很多时候，当阿狗感觉没话批了，可以尝试从常识部分入手，当然，是要符合大众的常识，而不是你个人的常识，像我前面有一篇是这样说的（谁的文章我不记得了...以下是改草木30篇阿狗的第5篇其中的某一段落）
Secondly, the author asserts different way of cooling the house causes the decrease of electricity consuming just because they happen together. （巧合因素，感觉不够充分）Obviously, the evidence for the casual relationship is too vague to believe. Furthermore, to satisfy the same requirement, common sense informs us air condition costs more electricity than fans. （应该在题目角度上反驳而不是就着这类无意义的细节讨论）Thus, there must be other reasons causing the decrease of the electric consumption. The most reasonable one is that the expense for air condition is so money-consuming that the citizens would like to tolerate the hot weather rather than pay for it.（此论点想反驳什么？空调耗电费导致人们宁愿忍受炎热所引导出来的结论是什么？）红字部分虽然看似合理，但这常识偏了点，类似于5分范文里面的那个批评家不可信的理由。


666出品
本文系寄托天下作者原创，转载请保持文章完整，并请务必注明真实作者和出处 --- 这篇是早就想写的东西了，主要是涉及到一些对argument论证的思考，出于某些原因拖到现在。

最近十来天一直在攻克A,虽然各项事务繁忙不敢说100%concentrating on,可能连50%都没有，不过前期的积累和最近的顿悟使得我对A的理解清楚了不少，也有了一些很新的想法来给大家分享，希望同样追求自我价值实现和真正愿意踏实地来研究一些AW里面关于逻辑和行文的同学们，如果真的还有这样的人，能够在我这条曲折的抛弃新东方和模板的道路上走的顺畅一些。

Argument，众所周知，是由前提开始，从一步步过程当中层层批驳作者的逻辑推理错误的驳论文。感谢XDF在入门的方面给予同志们的多种取巧办法，现在的考生对于A的大的批驳方向确定没有问题的，然而不幸的是，段落内部的结构却不是一个简单的模板就能够讲的清，辩的明。在几乎所有的argument段落论证当中，最为实在的内容，恐怕就是反例了，尤其是在版面上现在充斥着肤浅的：开头句模板+2个possibilities+结尾句模板=一个段落 的结构当中，反例，是唯一能够给考官展现论证能力的东西。

为了找到一堆反例来凑字数或者显示自己的强悍思辨实力，不少童鞋挖空心思，无所不用其极，找出的可能性千奇百怪，不但有的几乎没有发生的可能性，有的还更是自相矛盾，削弱了自己的主题句的立场，成为了文章的硬伤，自己还一无所知，感觉良好。

如何使你的文章更有说服力？实际上，作文版的各个前辈已经回答过这个问题，我想借使徒的一段论证来重新回答一次：


这个步骤中很重要的一步就是“常识”，符合常识的，即为合理推断，无关常识的，为一般推断，不符合常识的，为脑残推断。所谓的“论据不足”，根本上讲就是因为这些论据不足以填满我们常识中需要形成固定结果的条件，因此它才不足。写ARGUMENT的时候怎么说明这种不足就成了很重要的话题。


那么，这里又延伸出另一个关键的问题：怎样的论述才是“符合常识”的论述？这个问题，恐怕很难有固定的答案，但是我希望能通过这篇东西，给自己，也给童鞋们，一个思维的突破口。

按照惯例，首先搬出铁证，ETS的范文，题目如下:


The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Silver Screen Movie Production Company.
"According to a recent report from our marketing department, fewer people attended movies produced by Silver Screen during the past year than in any other year.  And yet the percentage of generally favorable comments by movie reviewers about specific Silver Screen movies actually increased during this period.  Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers; so the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available.  Silver Screen should therefore spend more of its budget next year on reaching the public through advertising and less on producing new movies."


在这篇关于电影评论的5分和6分ETS范文里面，同样的批驳上色的那段逻辑推理，给出了两种不同方向的论述：

5分范文：批评家不可信。然后给出可能性：可能虽然涨了但批评家还是大多不喜欢电影。
6分范文：人们很少相信批评家。然后发展观点：电影要讨好大众。再解释下观点，说明人们与批评家的观点不一定一致。

从常识层面来讲，哪一个更有说服力？我想，6分的已经在这个方面明显高出一个档次。事实上，ETS给出的commentary也证实了这一点。

咱们再来看几篇板油的习作：

第一篇习作来自jlmjacky童鞋的Argument45。在论述关于猎人的report的可信度的时候，他的论证出发点是这样的


As all we know, the hunters could not have enough knowledge of the statistics, and this judgment must decide from their own experience, maybe with some mistakes in a huge probability.


他将猎人的报告不可信的原因归结为：猎人没有足够的相关知识。怎么样，是不是很熟悉，XXX没有足够的OOO方面的知识或者经验 这种论述，应该是经常出现在大家的文章里面吧？

然而这个论述有说服力么？据我浅薄的知识面来讲，猎人更应当被看作是experts of wild lives,长期和动物打交道的他们，如果都没有足够的知识来说明动物最近的情况，那么难道在校的大学生有这样的知识？因此这种论述明显是不足以让人信服的。

怎么样的论述更加合理？在我写过的同样的A45当中，我是这样来说明这个report不可信的（仅供参考）：


(however,) even hunters could be misled by the switch of the migration habit of Arctic deer.


把猎人的报告不可信的原因归咎于他们可能被动物可能的迁移路线改变所误导了。按照常识来讲，动物的迁移路线并非一成不变的。因此我相信这样的反例，就比前面提到的那个更加有说服力。

第二篇习作来自justdoit童鞋的Argument65, 在反驳关于“合并垃圾部门接到群众抱怨少，所以效果好”的论述中，他是这样写的：


Common sense tells that few complaints cannot be behalf of the satisfactory service, it is probable that the service of the new department did not improve, since the people in P and C maybe more shy or some other factors.


他将政府收到抱怨少的原因归咎于人们的腼腆，或者对政府的一种害怕情绪，实际上，在我们的生活中，有多少人是因为害羞而没有去投诉的？我想几乎没有。更加符合常理的可能性应该是这样：


People in P and C might not be willing to waste their time in phoning or trudging long to report an inconvenient trifle about garbage collecting to government.


政府部门接到的抱怨少是因为可能在市民们看来，垃圾收集的不便只是一件小事不足以劳动他们大驾专程向政府抱怨一次。

好了，我想从上面的三个例子当中，同学们应该能够很充分的认识到符合常识的论述的重要性了，那么下面就是解决这个关键的问题：如何使论述更加符合常识性？

事实上，任何一个论述，都是有一套完整的前提A，推论B和背景C的，正是这三个东西加上一些推理性的词语，构成了整个逻辑的链接，一般来讲就是：A à B(基于C的背景下)，无论ABC哪一个出了问题，都无法支持这个推理，现在我们所面临的最大问题就是：思维僵化，只会从A当中找突破口。其实如果是从B或C为基点出发，找到一些与A有关的可能性，同样能够推翻作者的推理。

我们重新分析一下范文题目里的这个错误的推理逻辑结构： And yet the percentage of generally favorable comments by movie reviewers about specific Silver Screen movies actually increased during this period（A）à the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers（B） （这里没有明显的背景C） 可以看出这个推理涉及到2个名词：reviewers和viewers.

在5分的范文中，作者就是从A当中寻找突破口，草率的提出：reviewers不可信这个论断。
而6分的范文里，则更加关注于从viewers(B)的角度来对reviewers(A)寻找突破口，找到更加符合常识的推论：viewers很少相信reviewers。

同样的我们来分析A45关于猎人报告的推论：According to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining（A） à the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea(B) (基于背景They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year.（C）的前提下)

在justdoit童鞋的论证里面，就是典型的从（A）local hunters的角度来对report寻找突破反例，最终他找到的是：猎人知识面有限
而从我写的那一段论述中，是从背景C moving 这个词的角度来对 report寻找反例的：猎人可能被moving的路线改变所误导。

从上面两个例子我们可以看出，当各位焦头烂额的想不到合适的论证方式的时候，不妨从背景和结果的角度来重新审核你所要批驳的内容，从而启发灵感，使文章更加有说服力。在熟练的分析题目的段落逻辑结构以后，可以很快的明确A,B,C的关键词从而综合的考虑辩证角度。当然，对于投机的同学来讲，很不幸，这个是需要专门训练之后才能达到熟练的一个东西，短时间内是无法速成了。

另外需要补充的一点就是：由于对某个关键词入手角度的不同，即使是同样的突破口，也会有不一样的结论。上面讲到的关于argument65投诉少的2个论证角度就是一个典型的都从A来突破，但是最终考虑的方向决定了论述合理性的例子。这里，就需要平时更多的积累和观察，从而方便在考场上第一时间想到最合理的方向。

中原527UID：2707367

这几天一直在做6级卷子，非常丧气...
阅读大致看懂了题目却错了很多
大概总结了下
主要集中在推测题（把握作者思想总是不太好）
然后就是细节题，原文与题目中个别单词替换型严重暴露出我词汇量的不足
最最最可怕的是
阅读速度太慢了....

中原527UID：2707367

做六级翻译时，关于倒装句
2, 有个别其他副词放在句首时，又是也会有这个现象：
Often would she(she would) weep when alone.
Bitterly did he repent that decision. 他深深地悔恨那个决定。
Gladly would I give my life to save the child.（草木贴）
副词部分还有
only
当“only＋状语”位于句首时，其后习惯上要用部分倒装。其中，only后的状语可以是副词、介词短语、从句等。

Only in this way can we learn English. 只有这样才能学会英语。

Only then did I understand what she meant. 只有到那时我才明白她的意思。

Only by shouting was he able to make himself heard.  他只有叫喊才能让别人听到他。

注意，在only后作状语的是从句时，从句不要用倒装，要部分倒装的是主句。如：

Only when it rains do you feel cool. 只有下雨时才觉得凉爽一点。

Only when he returned home did he realize what had happened. 当他回到家里时，才知道出了什么事。

Only when we landed did we see how badly the plane had been damaged. 我们只是在着陆之后才看到飞机损坏的严重程度。
转载至http://www.yygrammar.com/Article/200811/794.html

中原527UID：2707367

·add 's to the singular form of the word (even if it ends in -s):
the owner's car
James's hat (James' hat is also acceptable. For plural, proper nouns that are possessive, use an apostrophe after the 's': "The Eggles' presentation was good." The Eggles are a husband and wife consultant team.)

·add 's to the plural forms that do not end in -s:
the children's game
the geese's honking

·add ' to the end of plural nouns that end in -s:
houses' roofs
three friends' letters

·add 's to the end of compound words:
my brother-in-law's money

·add 's to the last noun to show joint possession of an object:
Todd and Anne's apartment

Showing omission of letters

Apostrophes are used in contractions. A contraction is a word (or set of numbers) in which one or more letters (or numbers) have been omitted. The apostrophe shows this omission. Contractions are common in speaking and in informal writing. To use an apostrophe to create a contraction, place an apostrophe where the omitted letter(s) would go. Here are some examples:
don't = do not
I'm = I am
he'll = he will
who's = who is
shouldn't = should not
didn't = did not
could've= could have (NOT "could of"!)
'60 = 1960


Forming plurals of lowercase letters

Apostrophes are used to form plurals of letters that appear in lowercase; here the rule appears to be more typographical than grammatical, e.g. "three ps" versus "three p's." To form the plural of a lowercase letter, place 's after the letter. There is no need for apostrophes indicating a plural on capitalized letters, numbers, and symbols (though keep in mind that some editors, teachers, and professors still prefer them). Here are some examples:

p's and q's = a phrase taken from the early days of the printing press when letters were set in presses backwards so they would appear on the printed page correctly. The expression was used commonly to mean, "Be careful, don't make a mistake." Today, the term also indicates maintaining politeness, possibly from "mind your pleases and thankyous."

Nita's mother constantly stressed minding one's p's and q's.
three Macintosh G4s = three of the Macintosh model G4
There are two G4s currently used in the writing classroom.
many & s = many ampersands
That printed page has too many & s on it.
the 1960s = the years in decade from 1960 to 1969
The 1960s were a time of great social unrest.


Don't use apostrophes for possessive pronouns or for noun plurals.

Apostrophes should not be used with possessive pronouns because possessive pronouns already show possession — they don't need an apostrophe. His, her, its, my, yours, ours are all possessive pronouns. Here are some examples:

wrong: his' book
correct: his book
wrong: The group made it's decision.
correct: The group made its decision.
(Note: Its and it's are not the same thing. It's is a contraction for "it is" and its is a possessive pronoun meaning "belonging to it." It's raining out= it is raining out. A simple way to remember this rule is the fact that you don't use an apostrophe for the possessive his or hers, so don't do it with its!)

wrong: a friend of yours'
correct: a friend of yours
wrong: She waited for three hours' to get her ticket.
correct: She waited for three hours to get her ticket.



Proofreading for apostrophes

A good time to proofread is when you have finished writing the paper. Try the following strategies to proofread for apostrophes:
·If you tend to leave out apostrophes, check every word that ends in -s or -es to see if it needs an apostrophe.
·If you put in too many apostrophes, check every apostrophe to see if you can justify it with a rule for using apostrophes.






Hyphens

This resource was written by Purdue OWL.
Last full revision by Sean M. Conrey.
Last edited by Karl Stolley on February 1st 2006 at 2:49PM
Summary: A comprehensive rundown on the proper use of the hyphen.

Hyphen Use

Two words brought together as a compound may be written separately, written as one word, or connected by hyphens. For example, three modern dictionaries all have the same listings for the following compounds:
hair stylist
hairsplitter
hair-raiser

Another modern dictionary, however, lists hairstylist, not hair stylist. Compounding is obviously in a state of flux, and authorities do not always agree in all cases, but the uses of the hyphen offered here are generally agreed upon.

1.Use a hyphen to join two or more words serving as a single adjective before a noun:
a one-way street
chocolate-covered peanuts
well-known author
However, when compound modifiers come after a noun, they are not hyphenated:
The peanuts were chocolate covered.
The author was well known.

2.Use a hyphen with compound numbers:
forty-six
sixty-three
Our much-loved teacher was sixty-three years old.

3.Use a hyphen to avoid confusion or an awkward combination of letters:
re-sign a petition (vs. resign from a job)
semi-independent (but semiconscious)
shell-like (but childlike)

4.Use a hyphen with the prefixes ex- (meaning former), self-, all-; with the suffix -elect; between a prefix and a capitalized word; and with figures or letters:
ex-husband
self-assured
mid-September
all-inclusive
mayor-elect
anti-American
T-shirt
pre-Civil War
mid-1980s

5.Use a hyphen to divide words at the end of a line if necessary, and make the break only between syllables:
pref-er-ence
sell-ing
in-di-vid-u-al-ist

6.For line breaks, divide already hyphenated words only at the hyphen:
mass-
produced
self-
conscious

7.For line breaks in words ending in -ing, if a single final consonant in the root word is doubled before the suffix, hyphenate between the consonants; otherwise, hyphenate at the suffix itself:
plan-ning
run-ning
driv-ing
call-ing

8.Never put the first or last letter of a word at the end or beginning of a line, and don't put two-letter suffixes at the beginning of a new line:
lovely (Do not separate to leave ly beginning a new line.)
eval-u-ate (Separate only on either side of the u; do not leave the initial e- at the end of a line.)

中原527UID：2707367

Parallel Structure（平行结构）

Parallel structure means using the same pattern of words to show that two or more ideas have the same level of importance. This can happen at the word, phrase, or clause level. The usual way to join parallel structures is with the use of coordinating conjunctions such as "and" or "or."

Words and Phrases With the -ing form (gerund) of words:

Parallel: Mary likes hiking, swimming, and bicycling.

With infinitive phrases:

Parallel: Mary likes to hike, to swim, and to ride a bicycle.

OR Mary likes to hike, swim, and ride a bicycle.

(Note: You can use "to" before all the verbs in a sentence or only before the first one.)

Do not mix forms.

Example 1

Not Parallel:

Mary likes hiking, swimming, and to ride a bicycle.

Parallel:

Mary likes hiking, swimming, and riding a bicycle.

Example 2

Not Parallel:

The production manager was asked to write his report quickly, accurate ly, and in a detailed manner.

Parallel:

The production manager was asked to write his report quickly, accurately, and thoroughly.

Example 3

Not Parallel:

The teacher said that he was a poor student because he waited until the last minute to study for the exam, completed his lab problems in a careless manner, and his motivation was low.

Parallel:

The teacher said that he was a poor student because he waited until the last minute to study for the exam, completed his lab problems in a careless manner, and lacked motivation.

Clauses

A parallel structure that begins with clauses must keep on with clauses. Changing to another pattern or changing the voice of the verb (from active to passive or vice versa) will break the parallelism.

Example 1

Not Parallel:

The coach told the players that they should get a lot of sleep, that they should not eat too much, and to do some warm-up exercises before the game.
（为啥这里to do 不能用do？晕，问了C，to do 连接的是前面的told而不是should）
Parallel:

The coach told the players that they should get a lot of sleep, that they should not eat too much, and that they should do some warm-up exercises before the game.

— or —

Parallel:

The coach told the players that they should get a lot of sleep, not eat too much, and do some warm-up exercises before the game.

Example 2

Not Parallel:

The salesman expected that he would present his product at the meeting, that there would be time for him to show his slide presentation, and that questions would be asked by prospective buyers. (passive)

Parallel:

The salesman expected that he would present his product at the meeting, that there would be time for him to show his slide presentation, and that prospective buyers would ask him questions.

Lists After a Colon

Be sure to keep all the elements in a list in the same form.

Example 1

Not Parallel:

The dictionary can be used for these purposes: to find word meanings, pronunciations, correct spellings, and looking up irregular verbs.

Parallel:

The dictionary can be used for these purposes: to find word meanings, pronunciations, correct spellings, and irregular verbs.

Proofreading Strategies to Try:

·Skim your paper, pausing at the words "and" and "or." Check on each side of these words to see whether the items joined are parallel. If not, make them parallel.

·If you have several items in a list, put them in a column to see if they are parallel.

·Listen to the sound of the items in a list or the items being compared. Do you hear the same kinds of sounds? For example, is there a series of "-ing" words beginning each item? Or do your hear a rhythm being repeated? If something is breaking that rhythm or repetition of sound, check to see if it needs to be made parallel.

中原527UID：2707367

A special report on climate change and the carbon economy

Getting warmer

Dec 3rd 2009 From The Economist print edition

So far the effort to tackle global warming has achieved little. Copenhagen offers the chance to do better, says Emma Duncan (interviewed here)
Illustration by M. Morgenstern

THE mountain bark beetle is a familiar pest in the forests of British Columbia. Its population rises and falls unpredictably, destroying clumps of pinewood(成片的针叶林) as it peaks which then regenerate as the bug recedes. But Scott Green, who studies forest ecology at the University of Northern British Columbia, says the current outbreak is “unprecedented in recorded history: a natural background-noise disturbance has become a major outbreak. We’re looking at the loss of 80% of our pine forest cover.”* Other parts of North America have also been affected, but the damage in British Columbia is particularly severe, and particularly troubling in a province whose economy is dominated by timber.

Three main explanations for this disastrous outbreak suggest themselves. It could be chance. Populations do fluctuate dramatically and unexpectedly. It could be the result of management practices. British Columbia’s woodland is less varied than it used to be, which helps a beetle that prefers pine. Or it could be caused by the higher temperatures that now prevail in northern areas, allowing beetles to breed more often in summer and survive in greater numbers through the winter.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which the United Nations adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, is now 17 years old. Its aim was “to achieve stabilisation of greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic（a.人为的，人类活动产生的） interference （n.冲突，干涉）with the climate system”. The Kyoto protocol, which set about realising those aims, was signed in 1997 and came into force（开始实施，开始有效） in 2005. Its first commitment period runs out（V.跑出, 离开, 完成, 被用完, 伸向, 流逝, 逐出, 放出去） in 2012, and implementing（v贯彻，实施） a new one is expected to take at least three years, which is why the 15th conference of the parties to the UNFCCC that starts in Copenhagen on December 7th is such a big deal. Without a new global agreement, there is not much chance of averting serious climate change.

Since the UNFCCC was signed, much has changed, though more in the biosphere than the human sphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body set up to establish a scientific consensus on what is happening, heat waves, droughts, floods and serious hurricanes have increased in frequency over the past few decades; it reckons （vt.计算, 总计, 估计, 猜想）those trends are all likely or very likely to have been caused by human activity and will probably continue. Temperatures by the end of the century might be up by anything（？？？）
from 1.1ºC to 6.4ºC.

In most of the world the climate changes to date are barely perceptible （adj.可察觉的, 显而易见的, 感觉得到的）or hard to pin on warming. In British Columbia and farther north the effects of climate change are clearer. Air temperatures in the Arctic are rising about twice as fast as in the rest of the world. The summer sea ice is thinning and shrinking. The past three years have seen the biggest losses since proper record-keeping started in 1979. Ten years ago scientists reckoned that summer sea-ice would be gone by the end of this century. Now they expect it to disappear within a decade or so.

Since sea-ice is already in the water, its melting（融化） has little effect on sea levels. Those are determined by temperature (warmer water takes up more room) and the size of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. The glaciers（冰河） in south-eastern Greenland have picked up speed（加速）. Jakobshavn Isbrae, the largest of them, which drains 6% of Greenland’s ice, is now moving at 12km a year—twice as fast as it was when the UNFCCC was signed—and its “calving front”, where it breaks down into icebergs, has retreated by 20km in six years. That is part of the reason why the sea level is now rising at 3-3.5mm a year, twice the average annual rate in the 20th century.


As with the mountain bark beetle, it is not entirely clear why this is happening. The glaciers could be retreating because of one of the countless natural oscillations（n摆动，振动） in the climate that scientists do not properly understand. If so, the glacial retreat could well stop, as it did in the middle of the 20th century after a 100-year retreat. But the usual causes of natural variability do not seem to explain the current trend, so scientists incline to the view that it is man-made. It is therefore likely to persist unless mankind starts to behave differently—and there is not much sign of that happening.

Carbon-dioxide emissions are now 30% higher than they were when the UNFCCC was signed 17 years ago. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 equivalent (carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) reached 430 parts per million last year, compared with 280ppm before the industrial revolution. At the current rate of increase they could more than treble（a,三倍的v.成三倍） by the end of the century, which would mean a 50% risk of a global temperature increase of 5ºC. To put that in context, the current average global temperature is only 5ºC warmer than the last ice age. Such a rise would probably lead to fast-melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, drought, disease and collapsing（崩塌） agriculture in poor countries, and mass migration. But nobody really knows, and nobody wants to know.（人的惰性啊惰性...）

Some scientists think that the planet is already on an irreversible （adj.不能撤回的, 不能取消的）journey to dangerous warming. A few climate-change sceptics think the problem will right itself. Either may be correct. Predictions about a mechanism as complex as the climate cannot be made with any certainty. But the broad scientific consensus is that serious climate change is a danger, and this newspaper believes that, as an insurance policy against a catastrophe that may never happen, the world needs to adjust its behaviour to try to avert that threat.

The problem is not a technological one. The human race has almost all the tools it needs to continue leading much the sort of life it has been enjoying without causing a net increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Industrial and agricultural processes can be changed. Electricity can be produced by wind, sunlight, biomass or nuclear reactors, and cars can be powered by biofuels and electricity. Biofuel engines for aircraft still need some work before they are suitable for long-haul flights, but should be available soon.

Nor is it a question of economics. Economists argue over the sums (see article), but broadly agree that greenhouse-gas emissions（n.散发） can be curbed without flattening the world economy.
以上两段话的下划线首句用nor联系起来了，写aw可借鉴（但是说实话，联系全文就没看懂了...）
A hard sell

It is all about politics. Climate change is the hardest political problem the world has ever had to deal with. It is a prisoner’s dilemma, a free-rider
免费搭车者(享受其他国家最惠国待遇而不进行相应减让的国家)
problem and the tragedy of the commons all rolled into one. At issue is the difficulty of allocating the cost of collective action and trusting other parties to bear their share of the burden. At a city, state and national level, institutions that can resolve such problems have been built up over the centuries. But climate change has been a worldwide worry for only a couple of decades. Mankind has no framework for it. The UN is a useful talking shop, but it does not get much done.

The closest parallel is the world trading system. This has many achievements to its name, but it is not an encouraging model. Not only is the latest round of negotiations （n.商议, 谈判, 流通）mired in difficulty, but the World Trade Organisation’s task is child’s play compared with climate change. The benefits of concluding trade deals are certain and accrue in the short term. The benefits of mitigating climate change are uncertain, since scientists are unsure of the scale and consequences of global warming, and will mostly accrue many years hence. The need for action, by contrast, is urgent.

The problem will be solved only if the world economy moves from carbon-intensive to low-carbon—and, in the long term, to zero-carbon—products and processes. That requires businesses to change their investment patterns. And they will do so only if governments give them clear, consistent signals. This special report will argue that so far this has not happened. The policies adopted to avoid dangerous climate change have been partly misconceived（v.误解） and largely inadequate. They have sent too many wrong signals and not enough of the right ones.

That is partly because of the way the Kyoto protocol was designed. By trying to include all the greenhouse gases in a single agreement, it has been less successful than the less ambitious Montreal protocol, which cut ozone-depleting gases fast and cheaply. By including too many countries in detailed negotiations, it has reduced the chances of agreement. And by dividing the world into developed and developing countries, it has deepened a rift that is proving hard to close. Ultimately, though, the international agreement has fallen victim to domestic （adj.家庭的, 国内的, 与人共处的, 驯服的）politics. Voters do not want to bear the cost of their elected leaders’ aspirations, and those leaders have not been brave enough to push them.

Copenhagen represents a second chance to make a difference. The aspirations are high, but so are the hurdles （n.篱笆, 栏, 障碍, 跨栏, 活动篱笆.） The gap between the parties on the two crucial questions—emissions levels and money—remains large. America’s failure so far to pass climate-change legislation means that a legally binding agreement will not be reached at the conference. The talk is of one in Bonn, in six months’ time, or in Mexico City in a year.

To suggest that much has gone wrong is not to denigrate（v.毁誉） the efforts of the many people who have dedicated（devote） two decades to this problem. For mankind to get even to the threshold （n.开始, 开端, 极限）of a global agreement is a marvel. But any global climate deal will work only if the domestic policies（国内政策） through which it is implemented are both efficient and effective. If they are ineffective, nothing will change. If they are inefficient, they will waste money. And if taxpayers decide that green policies are packed with pork, they will turn against them.
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14994872

看此文花了两个多小时...
comment还没写...
明天一下午赶三篇...
comment:
The article is begined with a phenomenon of a familiar pest called the mountain bark beetle in the forests of British Columbia, and extends other example such as sea-ice's melting. Even though they partly are resulted from the natural element, the man-made reason should be not ignored.
confronted with the recent problem that Carbon-dioxide emissions are higher year by year, such a rise would probably lead to fast-melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, drought, disease and collapsing agriculture in poor countries, and mass migration. But the climate change such laggardly that few people focus on it unless it leads a series of catastrophe. The higher Carbon-dioxide emission is a global problem, since there is much chance of averting serious climate change after the agreement of counties all over the world. But when the emissions levels connected the economy, the means to solve the problem are be more complex. So the new words called "prisoner’s dilemma" and "a free-rider" have been born to describe the phenomena that some countries do not want to toe the mark.

中原527UID：2707367

Commas vs. Semicolons in Compound Sentences

A group of words containing a subject and a verb and expressing a complete thought is called a sentence or an independent clause. Sometimes, an independent clause stands alone as a sentence, and sometimes two independent clauses are linked together into what is called a compound sentence. Depending on the circumstances, one of two different punctuation marks can be used between the independent clauses in a compound sentence: a comma or a semicolon. The choice is yours.

Comma (,)

Use a comma after the first independent clause when you link two independent clauses with one of the following coordinating conjunctions: and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet. For example:
I am going home, and I intend to stay there.
It rained heavily during the afternoon, but we managed to have our picnic anyway.
They couldn't make it to the summit and back before dark, so they decided to camp for the night.

Semicolon (;)

Use a semicolon when you link two independent clauses with no connecting words. For example:
I am going home; I intend to stay there.
It rained heavily during the afternoon; we managed to have our picnic anyway.
They couldn't make it to the summit and back before dark; they decided to camp for the night.
You can also use a semicolon when you join two independent clauses together with one of the following conjunctive adverbs (adverbs that join independent clauses): however, moreover, therefore, consequently, otherwise, nevertheless, thus, etc. For example:

I am going home; moreover, I intend to stay there.
It rained heavily during the afternoon; however, we managed to have our picnic anyway.
They couldn't make it to the summit and back before dark; therefore, they decided to camp for the night.
For more information about compound sentence patterns, see the Purdue OWL handout on Sentence Punctuation Patterns.

Commas with Nonessential Elements

Some modifying elements of a sentence are essential, restricting the meaning of a modified term, while others are nonessential and don't restrict the modified term's meaning. These nonessential elements, which can be words, phrases, or clauses, are set off with commas.

Rule: Use commas before and after nonessential words, phrases, and clauses, that is, elements embedded in the sentence that interrupt it without changing the essential meaning.
If you leave out the element or put it somewhere else in the sentence, does the essential meaning of the sentence change? If so, the element is essential; if not, it is nonessential.

Nonessential: The average world temperature, however, has continued to rise significantly. (word)
Essential: The sixth-century philosopher Boethius was arrested, tortured, and bludgeoned to death. (word)

Nonessential: Company managers, seeking higher profits, hired temporary workers to replace full-time staff. (phrase)
Essential: The person checking tickets at the counter asked for a form of identification. (phrase)

Nonessential: My uncle, who is eighty years old, walks three miles every day. (clause)
Essential: The woman who interviewed you is my sister. (clause)
Deciding whether an element is essential or nonessential can sometimes be tricky. For help identifying two common types of phrases that can be either essential or nonessential, see the OWL handouts on verbals which includes information on participial phrases, as well as the handout on appositives which covers appositive phrases. Both of these documents address the essential/nonessential distinction for these kinds of phrases.
You can try three different interactive exercises that allow you to practice these rules, each with its own answer key.

123runfordreamUID：2697608

黑猫黑猫 我是警长！！
加油加油！！

中原527UID：2707367

[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comment][12.20]

A special report on China and America A wary respect Oct 22nd 2009 From The Economist print edition America and China need each other, but they are a long way from trusting each other, says James Miles. “OUR future history will be more determined by our position on the Pacific facing China than by our position on the Atlantic facing Europe,” said the American president as he contemplated the extraordinary commercial opportunities that were opening up in Asia. More than a hundred years after Theodore Roosevelt（西奥多罗斯福） made this prediction, American leaders are again looking across the Pacific to determine their own country’s future, and that of the rest of the world. Rather later than Roosevelt expected, China has become an inescapable(a.不可避免性) part of it. 中国影响力更大 Back in 1905, America was the rising power. Britain, then ruler of the waves, was worrying about losing its supremacy（n.霸权） to the upstart（n.暴发户: to jump up (as to one's feet) suddenly）. Now it is America that looks uneasily on the rise of a potential challenger. A shared cultural and political heritage helped America to eclipse（: a falling into obscurity or decline; also : the state of being eclipsed <his reputation has fallen into eclipse> vt.引起日蚀, 引起月蚀, 超越, 使黯然失色） British power without bloodshed, but the rise of Germany and Japan precipitated global wars. President Barack Obama faces a China that is growing richer and stronger while remaining tenaciously（: persistent in maintaining, adhering to, or seeking something valued or desired <a tenacious advocate of civil rights> <tenacious negotiators>） authoritarian. Its rise will be far more nettlesome （causing vexation : irritating） than that of his own country a century ago. With America’s economy in tatters（n.破布） and China’s still growing fast (albeit not as fast as before last year’s financial crisis), many politicians and intellectuals in both China and America feel that the balance of power is shifting more rapidly in China’s favour. Few expect the turning point to be as imminent as it was for America in 1905. But recent talk of a “G2” hints at a remarkable shift in the two countries’ relative strengths: they are now seen as near-equals whose co-operation is vital to solving the world’s problems, from finance to climate change and nuclear proliferation. Choose your weapons Next month Mr Obama will make his first ever visit to China. He and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao (pictured above) stress the need for co-operation and avoid playing up their simmering trade disputes, fearful of what failure to co-operate could mean. On October 1st China offered a stunning display of the hard edge of its rising power as it paraded its fast-growing military arsenal through Beijing.写ISSUE可借鉴~ The financial crisis has sharpened fears of what Americans often see as another potential threat. China has become the world’s biggest lender to America through its purchase of American Treasury securities, which in theory would allow it to wreck the American economy. These fears ignore the value-destroying (and, for China’s leaders, politically hugely embarrassing) effect that a sell-off of American debt would have on China’s dollar reserves. This special report will explain why China will continue to lend to America, and why the yuan is unlikely to become a reserve currency soon. 这段没看懂，是说他们的恐惧忽略了某种影响，这种影响是美国的债务会被中国美元储备所囊括。这个报道不仅解释了为什么中国仍能够影响美国，和为什么人民币不太可能很快成为流通储备。（这两者感觉是相反的含义啊…中国能影响美国，接下来符合逻辑 的不应该是人民币很快成为流通货币这类的意思么？） When Lawrence Summers was president of Harvard University (he is now Mr Obama’s chief economic adviser), he once referred to a “balance of financial terror” between America and its foreign creditors, principally China and Japan. That was in 2004, when Japan’s holdings were more than four times the size of China’s. By September 2008 China had taken the lead. China Daily, an official English-language newspaper, said in July that China’s massive holdings of US Treasuries meant it could break the dollar’s reserve-currency status any time. But it also noted that in effect this was a “foreign-exchange version of the cold-war stalemate based on ‘mutually （adv.互相地, 互助）assured destruction’”. China is exploring the rubble （n.碎石）of the global economy in hopes of accelerating its own rise. Some Chinese commentators point to the example of the Soviet Union, which exploited Western economic disarray （v.混乱）during the Depression to acquire industrial technology from desperate Western sellers. China has long chafed at controls imposed by America on high-technology exports that could be used for military purposes. It sees America’s plight（ vt.保证, 约定）as a cue to push for the lifting of such barriers and for Chinese companies to look actively for buying opportunities among America’s high-technology industries. The economic crisis briefly slowed the rapid growth, from a small base, of China’s outbound direct investment. Stephen Green of Standard Chartered predicts that this year it could reach about the same level as in 2008 (nearly $56 billion, which was more than twice as much as the year before). Some Americans worry about China’s FDI, just as they once mistakenly did about Japan’s buying sprees, but many will welcome the stability and employment that it provides. China may have growing financial muscle, but it still lags far behind as a technological innovator and creator of global brands. This special report will argue that the United States may have to get used to a bigger Chinese presence on its own soil, including some of its most hallowed turf（神圣的草皮，赛马场？？？）, such as the car industry. A Chinese man may even get to the moon before another American. But talk of a G2 is highly misleading. By any measure, China’s power is still dwarfed by America’s. Authoritarian though China remains, the two countries’ economic philosophies are much closer than they used to be. As Yan Xuetong of Tsinghua University puts it, socialism with Chinese characteristics (as the Chinese call their brand of communism) is looking increasingly like capitalism with American characteristics. In Mr Yan’s view, China’s and America’s common interest in dealing with the financial crisis will draw them closer together strategically too. Global economic integration, he argues with a hint of resentment, has made China “more willing than before to accept America’s dominance”. The China that many American business and political leaders see is one that appears to support the status quo and is keen to engage peacefully with the outside world. But there is another side to the country. Nationalism is a powerful, growing and potentially disruptive force. Many Chinese—even among those who were educated in America—are suspicious of American intentions and resentful of American power. They are easily persuaded that the West, led by the United States, wants to block China’s rise. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the restoration of diplomatic ties between America and China, which proved a dramatic turning point in the cold war. Between the communist victory in 1949 and President Richard Nixon’s historic visit to China in 1972 there had been as little contact between the two countries as there is between America and North Korea today. But the eventual disappearance of the two countries’ common enemy, the Soviet Union, raised new questions in both countries about why these two ideological rivals should be friends. Mutual economic benefit emerged as a winning answer. More recently, both sides have been trying to reinforce the relationship by stressing that they have a host of new common enemies, from global epidemics to terrorism. But it is a relationship fraught with contradictions. A senior American official says that some of his country’s dealings with China are like those with the European Union; others resemble those with the old Soviet Union, “depending on what part of the bureaucracy you are dealing with”. Cold-war parallels are most obvious in the military arena. China’s military build-up in the past decade has been as spectacular as its economic growth, catalysed by the ever problematic issue of Taiwan, the biggest thorn in the Sino-American relationship. There are growing worries in Washington, DC, that China’s military power could challenge America’s wider military dominance in the region. China insists there is nothing to worry about. But even if its leadership has no plans to displace American power in Asia, this special report will say that America is right to fret that this could change. Politically, China is heading for a particularly unsettled period as preparations gather pace for sweeping leadership changes in 2012 and 2013. Mr Hu and the prime minister, Wen Jiabao, will be among many senior politicians due to retire. As America moves towards its own presidential elections in 2012, its domestic politics will complicate matters. Taiwan too will hold presidential polls in 2012 in which China-sceptic politicians will fight to regain power. Triple hazard（三足鼎立类似词意思吧） This political uncertainty in all three countries simultaneously will be a big challenge for the relationship between China and America. All three will still be grappling with the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Urban Chinese may be feeling relaxed right now, but there could be trouble ahead. Yu Yongding, a former adviser to China’s central bank, says wasteful spending on things like unnecessary infrastructure projects (which is not uncommon in China) could eventually drain the country’s fiscal strength and leave it with “no more drivers for growth”. In recent weeks even Chinese leaders have begun to sound the occasional note of caution about the stability of China’s recovery. This special report will argue that the next few years could be troubled ones for the bilateral relationship. China, far more than an economically challenged America, is roiled by social tensions. Protests are on the rise, corruption is rampant, crime is surging. The leadership is fearful of its own citizens. Mr Obama is dealing with a China that is at risk of overestimating its strength relative to America’s. Its frailties—social, political and economic—could eventually imperil （vt.使处于危险, 危害） both its own stability and its dealings with the outside world. COMMENTS From the passage, America have regarded China as its the important emulant that may imperil its supremacy of controlling the world. Maybe some patriots in our country are satisfied with this the state of America and imagine that our mother country has an equal position with America in economy, military strength and so on. The financial data indeed points that America’s economy is in tatters and China’s still growing fast. But in my views, our country has many domestic problems to solve such as the disadvantage that it still lags far behind as a technological innovator and creator of global brands. With the goal of becoming the real great power in the world, We still has a long way to go.

中原527UID：2707367

101# 123runfordream
呵呵呵~~~
努力啊努力~~~

中原527UID：2707367

这么多天了
被一些乱七八糟的事情纠缠着
不想想了
得集中注意力解决眼前的事情

中原527UID：2707367

A Little Help with Capitals

This handout（n分发的新闻稿，印刷品） lists some guidelines for capitalization. If you have a question about whether a specific word should be capitalized that doesn't fit under one of these rules, try checking a dictionary to see if the word is capitalized there.（重视大写字母词汇）

Use capital letters in the following ways:

The first words of a sentence

When he tells a joke, he sometimes forgets the punch line（？？？）.

The pronoun "I"

The last time I visited Atlanta was several years ago.

Proper nouns (the names of specific people, places, organizations, and sometimes things)

Worrill Fabrication Company
Golden Gate Bridge
Supreme Court
Livingston, Missouri
Atlantic Ocean
Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Family relationships (when used as proper names)

I sent a thank-you note to Aunt Abigail, but not to my other aunts.
Here is a present I bought for Mother.
Did you buy a present for your mother?

The names of God, specific deities, religious figures, and holy books

God the Father
the Virgin Mary
the Bible
the Greek gods
Moses
Shiva
Buddha
Zeus

Exception: Do not capitalize the non-specific use of the word "god."
The word "polytheistic" means the worship of more than one god.

Titles preceding names, but not titles that follow names
She worked as the assistant to Mayor Hanolovi.
I was able to interview Miriam Moss, mayor of Littonville.

Directions that are names (North, South, East, and West when used as sections of the country, but not as compass directions)
The Patels have moved to the Southwest.
Jim's house is two miles north of Otterbein.

The days of the week, the months of the year, and holidays (but not the seasons used generally)
Halloween
October
Friday
winter
spring
fall

Exception: Seasons are capitalized when used in a title.
The Fall 1999 semester

The names of countries, nationalities, and specific languages
Costa Rica
Spanish
French
English

The first word in a sentence that is a direct quote
Emerson once said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

The major words in the titles of books, articles, and songs (but not short prepositions or the articles "the," "a," or "an," if they are not the first word of the title)
One of Jerry's favorite books is The Catcher in the Rye.

Members of national, political, racial, social, civic, and athletic groups
Green Bay Packers
African-Americans
Anti-Semitic
Democrats
Friends of the Wilderness
Chinese

Periods and events (but not century numbers)
Victorian Era
Great Depression
Constitutional Convention
sixteenth century

Trademarks
Pepsi
Honda
IBM
Microsoft Word

Words and abbreviations of specific names (but not names of things that came from specific things but are now general types)
Freudian
NBC
pasteurize
UN
french fries
italics