Scientific American 60 Second Science听抄（有音频文件）

ericasamakiUID: 2356903

班主太赞啦~~以后每天都来!!!

H-KevinUID: 2182070

这里真正的高手是 zhenzhen_163 还有 kevinliu6883 和 kelediguo ，大家多看看他们以前的帖子，可以学到很多:)

PS: 欢迎大家加入:handshake

lazysusanUID: 2318891

July 9, 2007
A shocker from the business world when management incentives consist mainly of stock options. There is an increase likelihood of cooking the books to increase the stock price. That is according to a study called ‘Incentives to cheat--the influence of executive compensation on firm performance on financial misrepresentation’. It is in the current issue of Organization Science. The authors know that two factors substantially increase the likelihood of some fuzzy math to up the stock price, very low stock performance relative to the average performance of stocks in the same industry, and stock options making a high percentage of CEO compensation. The researchers have found over a 5-year period. There was 9% chance that a company would misrepresent its financial situation and get caught, so actual misrepresentation is probably higher than 9%. Bonuses did not have the same affected options which offer much greater opportunities for windfalls when sometimes tens of million of dollars on the line of stock options, the author say, that’s enough to motivate some executives to deliberately fetch the books.

kelediguoUID: 149939

2007-07-09

A shocker from the business world when management incentives consist mainly of stock options. There’s an increased likelihood of cooking the books to increase the stock price. That’s according to a study called Incentive to Cheat: the Influence of Executive Compensation and Firm Performance on Financial Misrepresentation. It’s in the current issue of Organization Science. The author has noted that two factors substantially increase the likelihood of some fuzzy math to up the stock price: very low stock performance relative to the average performance of stocks in the same industry and stock options making up high percentage of CEO’s compensation. The researchers found that over 5-year period there was a 9% chance that a company would misrepresent its financial situation and get caught, so actual misrepresentation is probably higher than 9%. Bonuses didn’t have the same effect as options which offer much greater opportunities for windfalls. With sometimes tens of millions of dollars on the line in stock options, the author say that’s enough to motivate some executives to deliberately fudge the books.

PS: 我不是高手:loveliness: ，到这里来大家都是互相学习的。

stoneflyandmoonUID: 2212749

唉...受打击了,听了这篇之后

xbx_leeUID: 129512

这篇做Top down做得伤心了。
虽然能知道他说的是cheating, misrepresentation, stock option 之间的关系，但是记下来的东西根本串不到一起。自己尝试做paraphrase的时候感觉只能读出自己记下来的只字片语，连组成一句像样的话都很难。
现在知道为什么口语里会有一分的情况了。

zhenzhen_163UID: 196150

:)

Missing a’s and s’s in your script. These little things will show whether you are truly using “top-down” or not because they are really difficult to catch when listening. Basically, you need to have a feel for it and know when and where to use them properly.

A shocker from the business world: When management incentives consist mainly of stock options, there’s an increased likelihood of cooking the books to increase the stock price. That’s according to a study called Incentives to Cheat: the Influence of Executive Compensation and Firm Performance on Financial Misrepresentation. It’s in the current issue of Organization Science. The authors note that two factors substantially increase the likelihood of some fuzzy math to up the stock price: very low stock performance relative to the average performance of stocks in the same industry and stock options making up a high percentage of a CEO’s compensation. The researchers found that over a 5-year period there was a 9% chance that a company would misrepresent its financial situation and get caught, so actual misrepresentation is probably higher than 9%. Bonuses didn’t have the same effect as options which offer much greater opportunities for windfalls. With sometimes tens of millions of dollars on the line in stock options, the authors say that’s enough to motivate some executives to deliberately fudge the books.

zhenzhen_163UID: 196150

Reading financial news will help. Perhaps you want to do it everyday for a while until you get used to it.    :)

kelediguoUID: 149939

原帖由 zhenzhen_163 于 2007-7-10 00:23 发表
:)

Missing a’s and s’s in your script. These little things will show whether you are truly using “top-down” or not because they are really difficult to catch when listening. Basically, y ...

我就觉得第一句不通，可当时也没细想，经你这么一断句，恍然大悟啊。实在是太佩服了，这才是真正的高人啊。


PS：关于a 和's , 我好像我经常犯这样的错误。看来细微处才能体现一个人真正的水平啊。

对了，你是不是英语老师啊，怀疑中……

kevinliu6883UID: 2338522

This one is definitely difficult.
Zhenzhen is absolutely high above us.
Without Zhenzhen's work, I would be still in the dark.

neilsimpsonUID: 2311886

xbx_leeUID: 129512

原帖由 kevinliu6883 于 2007-7-10 03:05 发表
Without Zhenzhen's work, I would be still in the dark.

So would I.

H-KevinUID: 2182070

同意你的观点:)

zhenzhen_163UID: 196150

:)

大家不要太伤心，金融方面的东西托福考的概率很小。

金融的东西需要一点点平常人不知道的专业知识。比方说，Stock options的功能是什么，公司是怎么用的。

有了这些专业知识，咱们top down就好办了。  

And thank you all for your kudos, guys.  我经历多一点（所以top down容易为我所用 :) ），但愿意继续虚心学习，和大家一起进步。欢迎各位和我讨论，个人资料里有我email 地址。


[ 本帖最后由 zhenzhen_163 于 2007-7-10 09:40 编辑 ]

zhenzhen_163UID: 196150

July 10, 2007: 60-Second Science
Ancient Mexican Food Also Relied On Hot Peppers

看看一些美国太太们（I’m pretty sure most of them are）网上聊辣椒，就可以知道有关的常用词汇了，诸如cayenne pepper, Tobasco sauce。

http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/pepper/msg0814141032711.html




[ 本帖最后由 zhenzhen_163 于 2007-7-10 12:09 编辑 ]