[1010G]8月中旬上海YY作文进阶小组-北美作文中译英

grassfreeUID：2807794

我晕，怎么掉色了啊，~~~~(>_<)~~~~

elvisxiaoUID：2735076

补上昨天的作业。。。

Issue 186

1.While this claim has considerable merit with respect to(有关）most areas of human endeavor（努力）-including education, art, and politics-I take exception with the claim when it comes to the direction of scientific research today.

2.Practicality seems clearly to be the litmus test（试金石） for education today.


3.And,more and more college students are majoring in technical fields for the purpose of securing lucrative（赚钱的） jobs immediately upon graduation.


4.admittedly（诚然）,many college students still advance to graduate-level study; yet the most popular such degree today is the MBA; after all, business administration is fundamentally about practicality（实用性） and pragmatism（实用主义）-that is ,"getting the job done" and paying attention to the "bottom line".


5.Practically also dictates（命令，支配） what sort of art is produced today . 


6.The content of today's feature films（故事片） and music is driven entirely by demographic（人口统计学的） considerations-that is, by pandering（迎合）to out practicality as well.


7.It's just that the independents to not thrive, and they constitute a minuscule segment of the market. In the main, today's real-estate developers, entertainment moguls, and publishing executives are concerned with practicality and profit, and not with artistic value and integrity（正直，完整）.



8.Practicality is also the overriding（首要的） concern in contemporary politics. Most politicians seem driven today by their interest in being elected and reelected-that is, in short-term survival-rather than by any sense of mission, or even obligation to their constituency（选民） or country.


9.Diplomatic and legal maneuverings(策略) and negotiations often appear intended to meet the practical needs of the parties involved-minimizing costs, preserving options, and so forth.



10.Those who would defend the speaker might claim that it is idealists--not pragmatists-who sway the masses, incite revolutions, and make political ideology reality.



11.Had these idealists concerned themselves with short-term survival and immediate needs rather than with their notions of  an ideal society,the United States and India might still be British colonies, and African Americans might still be relegated(贬低) to the backs of buses.



12.Although I concede this point ,the plain fact is that such idealists are far fewer in number today.



13.On the other hand, the claim amounts to overstatement when it comes to today's scientific endeavors（努力）.



14.In medicine the most common procedures today are cosmetic（化妆品）; these procedures strike me as highly impractical, given the health risks and expense involved.



15.Much of chemical research is also aimed  at practicality-at providing convenience and enhancing our immediate comfort.

cant0577UID：2781482

29# grassfree

恩， 恩 ， 下次太忙的话就先占一个位子，请一下假，这样我就知道了

grassfreeUID：2807794

恩！ 33# cant0577

cant0577UID：2781482

I4

1.In sum, no area of intellectual inquiry operates in a vacuum. 可以用在教育中

2.Advance knowledge

3.Sth is inextricably related.

4.Understand the interplay among them all

5.Bring meaning to what we learnt from it

6.An even more striking example of how expertise in diverse fields is needed to advance knowledge involves the area of astronomy and space exploration. 举例子

7.Solar system and the universe require increasingly Keen tools for observation and measurement

8.Be the domain of astrophysicists 这是。。的责任

9.Insofar as 举例

10.Physical and anthropogenic foreces

11.Two examples that aptly illustrate this point involve .....

12.Consider + sth  举例

13.Enhance = improve

14. Determine the life expectancy

Thereby  =therefore

翻译了5篇，积累了好多提出观点的句子和举例的方法，O(∩_∩)O~再也不会是傻傻的 for example, there is an example to  illustrate ....

grassfreeUID：2807794

Issue 4

I strongly agree with the proposition, that the great progress in knowledge field need expertise from various territories. The world around us is a seamless net which is composed by natural and human forces. Only master kinds of disciplines can we understand the way these forces interact. Two apt illustration of this point are cultural anthropology and astronomy.

Consider how a cultural anthropologist understand a kind of ancient civilization by assistances of archaeologists who excavated evidences and finally this understand was risen by the expertise of biochemists, geologists, linguists and even astronomers. Through the analysis of mummified body's hair, nails, blood and bones, biochemists and forensic scientists can ascertain the life expectancy, general well-being and the causes of death. These experts can also ensure proper maintenance of the evidences found at anthropology location. A Geologist can identify the source and time of materials which is used to make tools, weapons and architectures, therefore enable anthropologists to extrapolate about economy, trade, work habits, lifestyle, tourism and the extent of flow of the civilization. Linguists are needed because they can interpret the hieroglyphics words and extrapolate according to found fragments of writings. Because the ancients usually construct cities and buildings under the instruction of stars, the astronomers are contribute to interpret the arrangement of an ancient city, the designation, structure and position of monuments, tombs and temples.


The example in astronomy and explore field can be a more apt one in illustrating how necessary variety expertise is to encourage advance of the knowledge. Significant progress made in the understanding of solar system and cosmos needs acute tools for observation and measurement. It's the astrophysicists' domain that the technology of telescope and the measuring to the distance, quantity, volume, and so forth. Senior means of exploration are required by these progresses day by day. Mechanical, electronical and computer engineers have designed probe carrying with or without human. The produce and application require talents and insight of corporation leaders, executives and politic leaders. Even the diplomats would play a role------as to the main space programs, scientists from all of the world and international cooperation between every country. Finally, it is the philosopher whose expertise endows our understanding of space meaningful.

In sum, no field of knowledge exploration act in a vacuum. Only understand the interaction among scientists can we advance knowledge in any field, due to the relationship of them is inevitable. And it is the non-scientists who made science possible and gave it meaning.

好多专业词汇，翻译的好崩溃~~~~(>_<)~~~~

goingcvUID：2768476

I121
  To save endangered species, what is the limit of our responsibility? This statement elicits(引出) various problems concerning moral, conscience, self-protection(自我保护) and economy. I basicly consent this statement that people haven`t to make "special" effort, at the cost in money and jobs, to protect the endangered species.
From my perspective, there are three main arguments(论据) to sustain(支持) us, at least, shoulder certain duty to save endagered species. The first one is releated to guilty feeling(负罪感). This argument deem(认为) that it is disafforestationand polluting rivers done by people pose this situation which species are endagered, 从这种程度上看，people have responsibilities to take positive measures to protect those endangered species, because we threaten their living.
  The second argument is releated to ability. This statement don`t care
On the contrary, it deems that if we have been sensible of(意识到) this endangerment, known the necessary measures to protect the endangered species from extinction and been capable of(有能力做) doing that,then we morally(道义上) have enough duties to make necessary effort to prevent these species from extinction. This statement call people shouder very positive responsibilities to protect endangered species.
  The third argument is a kind of call for self-preservation. The constitution of animal society is complex, different species have dependent relationship between each other. In this structural matrix, every species` survival is dependent on
other species. If these relationships are broken, there would lead to a series of(一系列) species` extinctions, as a species in this natural world, our survival are also threatened at last. In spite of the above assertion sounds like a little farfetched(牵强的), environmentalists guarantee that ,if things go on like this,such situation has a hign possibility to take place.
  On the other hand, there are two convinced arguments to object the statement that humans are ought to have a duty to preserve endangered animals. The first viewpoint fundamentally follows(承袭了) Darwin`s parlance(说法) that species`s
extinction is the result of the so-called pitiless(无情的) process - natural selection, in which stronger species survive and weaker ones are eliminated(被淘汰的). What`s more, we humans are hardly survive in this process. Therefore, if we consider ,to provide convinence for our survival, eradicating(根除) other species is correct, then doing so is right. Darwin would say that we just do things that a aninmal should do.
  The second argument, the most compelling one I argue, resorts to(诉诸于) more sense(理性) than emotion. Every year, there are a lot of species diminshed on earth that is a scientific truth. Most of them are posed by natural force, the rest are posed by human. Nevertheless, it is far beyond our ability to save all the species.Thus, what criterion shoud we adopt to decide which species deserved to be saved and which not? For my part, we tend to protect species whose appearance and behavior is similar to us. This kind of preference(偏好) can be comprehended, after all, dolphins are cuter than bugs. But, this criterion has not logical(理性的) reason. Hence, it is more rational(合理的) to decide on the basis of our economical benefits. In another words,the more money and jobs should be expended to save the species,the less we consider it.
  Above all,preserving endangered species is a complex issue, which demands you to make a subjective judgement about moral duty and relative value of different (生命形态). Accordingly, there isn`t a simple and certain answer.However, becasue of the above reasons,I maintain self-profit (优先的)should be considered compared with the vague moral duty when we talk about saving endangered species.To sum up,as a species,when we humans for our servival have to save other species from extinction if we should save them,then we`ll do that ,which is the same process compared with Darwin`s natural selection.

elvisxiaoUID：2735076

ISSUE4

1.I strongly agree with the assertion that significant advances in knowledge require expertise(专门知识) from various fields.

2.The world around us presents a seamless（无缝的） web of physical and anthropogenic forces, which interact in ways that can be understood only in the context of a variety of disciplines（学科）.

3.Two examples that a aptly illustrate this point involve the fields of cultural anthropology and astronomy.

4.Consider how a cultural anthropologist's knowledge about an ancient civilization is enhanced not only by the expertise of the archaeologist-who unearths the evidence-that ultimately by the biochemists , geologists, linguists, and even astronomers .

5.By analyzing the hair, nails（指甲） , blood and bones of mummified bodies , biochemists and forensic scientists can determine the life expectancy ,general well-being, and common causes of death of the population.

6.A geologist can help identify the source（来源） and age of the materials used for tools, weapons, and structures-thereby enabling the anthropologist ,to extrapolate（推断） about the civilization's economy, trades and work habits ,lifestyle, extent of travel and mobility（流动）,and so forth.

7.Linguists are needed to interpret（作解释） hieroglyphics and extrapolate from found fragments of writing.

8.And an astronomer can help explain the layout（布局） of an ancient city as well as the design, structure and position of monuments, tombs, and temples-since ancients often looked to the stars for guidance in building cities and structures .

9.In sum, no area of intellectual inquiry operates in  a vacuum（真空）.

10.Because the sciences are inextricably（密不可分的） related, to advance our knowledge in any one area we must understand the interplay（相互作用） among them all.

11.An even more striking（显著的） example of how expertise in diverse fields is needed to advance knowledge involves the area of astronomy and space exploration.

12.Significant advancements in our knowledge of we the solar system and the universe require increasingly keen tools for observation and measurement.

13.Telescope technology and the measurement of celestial（天空的） distances, masses, volumes, and so forth ,are the domain（领域，范围） of astrophysicists.

14.These advances also require increasingly  sophisticated（精密的 高级的） means of exploration.

15.Manned and unmanned exploratory probes are designed by mechanical, electrical, and computer engineers.

16.And to build and enable these technologies requires the acumen and savvy of business leaders , managers, and politicians.

17.Even diplomats might play a role-insofar（在...范围） as major space projects require international cooperative efforts among the world's scientists and governments.

18.And ultimately it is our philosophers whose expertise helps provide meaning to what we learn about our universe.

sjkdgxmUID：2784363

I agree with the speaker’s broad assertion that money spent on research is generally money well invested. However ,the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to embrace research whose results are“controversial” while ignoring certain compelling reasons why some types of research might be unjustifiable。 My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental objectives and nature of research, as discussed below.
I concede the speaker is on the correct philosophical side of this issue. After all(毕竟), research is the exploration of unknown for true answers to our questions, and for lasting answers to our enduring problems. Research is the chief means by which we humans attempt to satisfy our insatiable appetite for knowledge, and our craving to understand ourselves and the world around us. Yet（然而） ,in the very notion of research also lies my first point of contention with the speaker, who illogically presumes that we can know the results of research before we invest in it. To the contrary（相反） ,if（如果） research is to be of any value it must explore uncharted and unpredictable territory. In fact,(事实上) query whether research whose benefits are immediate predictable can break any new ground, or whether it can be considered “research” at all.
While we must invest in research irrespective of whether the results might be controversial, at the same time we should be circumspect about research whose objectives are too vague and whose potential benefits are too speculative. After all, expensive research always carries significant opportunity costs—in terms of how the money might be spent toward addressing society’s more immediate problems that do not require research. One apt illustration of this point involves the so-called “star wars” defense initiative, championed by the Reagan administration during the 1980s.  In retrospect, this initiative was ill conceived and largely a waste of taxpayer dollars; and few would dispute that the exorbitant amount of money devoted to the initiative could have gone a long way toward addressing pressing social problems of the day by establishing after school programs for delinquent latchkey kids, by enhancing AIDS awareness and education, and so forth. As it turns out, at the end of the Star Wars debacle we were left with rampant gang violence, an AIDS epidemic, and an unprecedented federal budget deficit.
The speakers assertion is troubling in two other respects as well. First, no amount of research can completely solve the enduring problems of war, poverty, and violence, for the reason that they stem from certain aspects of human nature—such as aggression and greed. Although human genome research might eventually enable us to engineer away those undesirable aspects of our nature, in the meantime it is up to our economists, diplomats, social reformers, and jurists not our research laboratories to mitigate these problems. Secondly for every new research breakthrough that helps reduce human suffering is another that serves primarily to add to that suffering. For example, while some might argue that physics researchers who harnessed the power of the atom have provided us with an alternative source of energy and invaluable “peace-keepers”, this argument files in the face of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people murdered and maimed by atomic blasts, and by nuclear meltdowns. And, in fulfilling the promise of “better living through chemistry” research has given us chemical weapons for human slaughter. In short, so-called advances that scientific research has brought about often amount to net losses for humanity.
In sum, the speakers assertion that we should invest in research whose results are controversial begs the question, because we cannot know whether research will turn out controversial until we’ve invested in it. As for the speakers broader assertion, I agree that money spent on research is generally a sound investment—because it is an investment in the advancement of human knowledge and in human imagination and spirit. Nevertheless, when we do research purely for its own sake—without aim or clear purpose—we risk squandering resources which have been applied to relieve the immediate suffering of our dispirited, disadvantaged, and disenfranchise members of society, in the final analysis, given finite economic resources we are forced to strike a balance in how we allocate those resource among competing societal objectives.

四月小薇UID：2680355

这两天忙，明天一起补。。。

sjkdgxmUID：2784363

真的掉色了，发现自己写不出来，所以就边翻译边写，希望下一篇能够改变

elvisxiaoUID：2735076

ISSUE 10

1.The speaker's claim is actually threefold:1.ensuring the survival of large cities and, in turn, that of cultural traditions, is a proper function of government;2.government support is needed for our large cities and cultural traditions to survive and thrive; and 3.cultural traditions are preserved and generated(产生) primarily in our large cities.

2.First of all, subsidizing（自助） cultural traditions is not a proper role of government.

3.Admittedly, certain objectives, such as public health and safely, are so essential to the survival of large cities and of nations that government has a duty to ensure that they are met.

4.Moreover, government cannot possibly play an evenhanded（公平的） role as cultural patron（赞助）. Inadequate resources call for restrictions, priorities, and choices.

5.It is unconscionable（不合理的） to relegate normative（标准化的） decisions as to which cities or cultural traditions are more deserving（值得的）, valuable, or needy to a few legislators, whose notions about culture might be misguided or unrepresentative of those of the general populace.（to relegate normative decisions as to这句话不是很明白怎么回事，不知道表达了什么意思）

6.Also, legislators are all too likely to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of their home towns and states, or of lobbyists with the most money and influence.

7.However, culture-by which I chiefly（主要的） mean the fine arts-has always depended primarily on the patronage of private individuals and businesses, and not on the government.

8.The Medicis, a powerful banking family of Renaissance Italy, supported artists.....

9.During the twentieth century the primary source of cultural support were private foundations established by industrial magnates（巨头）......

10.And tomorrow cultural support will come from our new technology and media moguls-including the likes of....

11.In short, philanthropy is alive and well today, and so government need not intervene（干涉） to ensure that our cultural traditions are preserved and promoted.

12.Finally, and perhaps most importantly,the speakers unfairly suggests that large cities serve as the primary breeding ground（繁殖地） and sanctuaries for a nation's cultural traditions.

13.Today a nation's distinct（截然不同的） cultural traditions--its folk art, crafts, traditional songs, customs and ceremonies-burgeon（快速增长） instead in small towns and rural regions.

14.Admittedly, our cities do serve as our centers for "high art"; big cities are where deposit（存放，堆积）, display, and boast the world's preeminent（卓越的） art, architecture and music.

15.After all, modern cities are essentially multicultural stew pots.

16.In the final analysis government cannot philosophically justify assisting large cities for the purpose of either promoting or  preserving the nation's cultural traditions; nor is government assistance necessary toward these ends.

17.Moreover,assisting large cities would have little bearing（影响） on our distinct cultural traditions, which abide（逗留） elsewhere.

cant0577UID：2781482

41# sjkdgxm

加油哦~~

我们第一篇翻译都是血淋淋的收场的

sj 你是在职的啊？？辛苦了！！

cant0577UID：2781482

I10


The speaker's assertion actually has three meaningthreeflord: First, to make sure to preserve big cities ensuring the survival of large cities leading to preserve cultural tradition is the government obligation. Second, the preservation and luxury of center cities and cultural tradition must need the support from the government. Third, cultural tradition is mainlyprimarily created generated and preserved in the center cities. I disagre with all of the three meaning.claims
Firstly, it is not the government's duty to raise money to preserve cultural traditions.Subsidizing culture traditions Admittedly, some target plan,certain objectives  for example that public health and securitysafety, is essential to the survival of big large cities and countries; government indeed has obligated to realize these goals has duty to ensure that they are met.. But these goals should not be extended
extend to embrace the protection of cultural tradition. Furthermore, government as the supporter could not take the justified effort, play an evenhanded role for the requirement of the shortage of resource limits the usage, priorities and choices. It is unreasonableunconscionable to offer the standard proposals about relegate normative decision as to which cities or cultural traditions should worth more attention, and more value to those legislators whose concepts notions may be misguided and unrepresentative of those of the general popluace the public. Moreoveralso, legislators are all too likely to make such cultural choices benefiting their own cities and states or benefiting powerful and rich talker.Make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of their home towns and states,
Secondly, it is also not the necessary duty of the government to raise money to preserve cultural tradition. A lake of private resource maybe is justify an exception. But, culture, what I mainly mean is the fine art,has always chiefly primarily depended on the patronage from the private and private enterprisesprivate individuals and businesses, rather than depending on the government.  the somewhat powerful economic banking family,of Renaisance Meidiqi, had once support the artists, Mekanlojilo and Lafeier. During the 20th century, the mainly resource to support arts is coming from the private foundation established by the industry moguls Kanaki, Meilong, Lokfeiler and Gerdy. The future back holdingtomorrow cultural support will come from new technology and media moguls, including the likes of
Taide Tena and Bill Gates such persons. In a word, charity courses are still perfectly existing, so the government needn't to interfere (meddle) intervene to promise ensureour cultural tradition to get preservation and generation.
Finally, and maybe the most importantly,  the speaker proposes big cities taking the overriding effort as the chief place where the arts are created and can escape to for the state's cultural tradition, which is quiet unfair. Nowadays the country's distinct cultural tradition of folk art, crafts, traditional songs, customs and rites instead getting rapid development in small towns and countryside. adimittedly, our big cities actually take serve as the center effort for the glorious culture. Big cities arethe places可以删除 where we reserve depoist, display and pretend boast worldwide preeminent arts, structures and music. But the culture of big cities bigcity cultural hardly has any more connection with our national particular cultural tradition. After all, modern cities fundamentally are the melt of multiple cultures multicultural stew pots, therefore, by helping assisting big cities the government is actually helping to establish a global culture, and is also patronaging other countries' cultural tradition.
In the finally analysis, the government could not to proof it reasonable philosophically that these behaviour to raise financial support to major cities in order to expand or preserver the country's cultural tradition. Moreover, helping major cities hardly have impact have little bearing on preservation to  our tradition culture, for these tradition is kept in other places..
Which abide elsewhere


意思都能表达出来，可是就是没有人家那么精练~~~

看来还得学习啊~~~

grassfreeUID：2807794

Issue 10

The speaker's argument actually includes three points: 1 It's the government's responsibility to reserve major cities and to preserve cultural tradition; 2 the preservation and prosperity of major cities and cultural tradition must need government's support; 3 cultural tradition is mainly generated and preserved in major cities. I strongly disagree with
all these three points.

First of all, subsidizing culture preservation is not a proper function of government. Admittedly, the government certainly has responsibility to ensure some plans realized, such as public health and safety which are indispensable for major cities and country survival. However, these objectives shouldn’t be extended to cultural tradition preservation tenuously. Moreover, government can't be just as cultural tradition patron because resource deficiency requires restrictions, priorities, and choices. It is an unreasonable that submit the standardized decisions about which cities or cultural traditions are more worthy to concerning, valuable and needing to protect, to legislators who have been ill directed and don’t present the public. And legislators possibly make decisions which are good for their own cities or states, or for cultural agendas of rich and powerful lobbyists.

Secondly, subsidizing to cultural tradition's preservation is not the government's duty. A lack of private funding may be an exception. But cultural, I mainly mean art, always rely on private individuals and private corporations, not on government. Artists M and L were used to subsidized by the financial family M, who is powerful in Italian in R time. The primary support culture came from private foundations funded by industrial … K, M, L and G during the 20th century. The future support will come from new technology and media magnate, including T and Bill Gates. In short, philanthropy still exists today, so the government doesn’t need to intervene aiming at preserving and thriving our cultural tradition.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the speaker unjustly claimed that major cities play an important role to be a breeding ground and sanctuaries of a major culture of a country. Today the distinctive cultural tradition of a country such as folk art, craft, traditional songs, customs and ceremony develop fast in small cities and rural areas. Admittedly, our major cities do
serve as cultural centers of “grace art”; major cities are the place we deposit, display and boast distinct art, architectures and music. But major cities’ culture has little to do anymore with our country’s distinct cultural traditions. After all, modern city is the essentially stew pots of multiple culture. Accordingly, a government is actually helping to established global culture as well as to subsidize other countries’ cultural traditions by supporting major cities.