北二外2011年真题回忆版
百科知识与中文写作
一：选择题25*2'
1. 欧阳询颜真卿柳公权赵孟頫按时间顺序排列
2. 安溪铁观音产地省份
3. 汉朝主流书写字体哪两个
4. 限制价格会产生A物价上涨、B物价降低、C供大于求D过度需求
5. 中国人名解放军最高军衔
6. 出生于BC551-BC479年的是谁
7. 填诗词，桃花潭水深千尺不及汪伦送我情
8. 蹴鞠指的是那项运动
9. 顺天意者兼相爱..... 谁的话？
10. 子不语怪力乱神谁的话？
11. 质胜文则史，文胜质则史，文质彬彬，然后君子，谁的话？
12. 亚里士多德《形而上学》提出“四因说”，指的哪四因？
13. 恩格斯说它含着新世界观的天才萌芽的第一个文件，是指的马克思的哪个著作？
14. 感官经验第一性是哪种哲学思想流派
15. 科学活动与重复性生产活动不同，前者具有探索性和__性
16. 英国唯物主义和现代实验科学的真正始祖是谁
17. 代表美国现代精神的民族哲学思潮是哪个主义
18. 20th哲学两大潮流是人文主义&__主义？
19. 大风央企的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动个状况都是纯粹必然的，是体现了哪种哲学思想理论流派
20. 时间高于理论的认识是因为其具有A普遍性B绝对性C客观实在性D直接现实性
21. 以下哪个观点是荀子独有的仁者爱人顺天命为之天行有常得道多助
22. 破山中贼易，破心中贼难是明代哪位哲学家说的
23. 人的价值的最显著特点是
24. 兵者不祥之器是哪本名作中的思想
25. 《孙子兵法》中提到“五事”，指的哪五事
二：应用文40'：合理虚拟（不能出现真实姓名）毕业时的学业和能力情况向某公司负责人写封求职信。450字左右。
三：命题作文60'：以“遗产”为题。谈谈自己的思考与认识。不少于800字。
翻译硕士英语
60个单选共15分，一个完型20题15分，四篇阅读共20个选择20分，一篇回答问题的阅读20分，一篇作文30分写对一段话的理解，大致讲了现代社会做人的几个小原则，要求250-350字。
60道单选，单词不是很难，但是有很多拿不准，还有语法题，一共15分。第二项完形填空、；20个十五分，不难。阅读20个选择20分一篇问答题20分。作文250-350个字给出一段
文字写自己的观点大概是说人要矜持不能骄傲。阅读一篇是关于太阳月亮对潮汐起落的影响，问答是美国金钱政治的。
英语翻译基础：词汇翻译，有论语营销人员CBD head-hunting company 雪碧self-serving ticket。两篇英翻汉1，interculture:low-context high-context 2,一篇关于美国总统选举的。汉翻英：中美关于气候问题的还有一个是关于工厂废水污染的。
北二外2011翻译硕士英语题源均来自NY Times完形填空原文
During the first many decades of this nation’s existence, the United States was a wide-open, dynamic country with a rapidly expanding economy. It was also a country that tolerated a large amount of cruelty and pain — poor people living in misery, workers suffering from exploitation. Over the years, Americans decided they wanted a little more safety and security. This is what happens as nations grow wealthier; they use money to buy civilization.
Occasionally, our ancestors found themselves in a sweet spot. They could pass legislation that brought security but without a cost to vitality. But adults know that this situation is rare. In the real world, there’s usually a trade-off. The unregulated market wants to direct capital to the productive and the young. Welfare policies usually direct resources to the vulnerable and the elderly. Most social welfare legislation, even successful legislation, siphons money from the former to the latter. Early in this health care reform process, many of us thought we were in that magical sweet spot. We could extend coverage to the uninsured but also improve the system overall to lower costs. That is, we thought it would be possible to reduce the suffering of the vulnerable while simultaneously squeezing money out of the wasteful system and freeing it up for more productive uses.
That’s wha t the management gurus call a win-win.
It hasn’t worked out that way. The bills before Congress would almost certainly ease the anxiety of the uninsured, those who watch with terror as their child or spouse grows ill, who face bankruptcy and ruin.
And the bills would probably do it without damaging the care the rest of us receive. In every place where reforms have been tried — from Massachusetts to Switzerland — people come to cherish their new benefits. The new plans become politically untouchable.
But, alas, there would be trade-offs. Instead of reducing costs, the bills in Congress would probably raise them. They would mean that more of the nation’s wealth would be siphoned off from productive uses and shifted into a still wasteful health care system.
The authors of these bills have tried to foster efficiencies. The Senate bill would initiate several interesting experiments designed to make the system more effective — giving doctors incentives to collaborate, rewarding hospitals that provide quality care a t lower cost. It’s possible that some of these experiments will bloom into potent systemic reforms.
But the general view among independent health care economists is that these changes will not fundamentally bend the cost curve. The system after reform will look as it does today, only bigger and more expensive.
As Jeffrey S. Flier, dean of the Harvard Medical School, wrote in The Wall Street Journal last week, ―In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it.‖
Rather than pushing all of the new costs onto future generations, as past governments have done, the Democrats have admirably agreed to raise taxes. Over the next generation, the tax increases in
the various bills could funnel trillions of dollars from the general economy into the medical system.
Moreover, the current estimates almost certainly unde rstate the share of the nation’s wealth that will have to be shifted. In these bills, the present Congress pledges that future Congresses will impose painful measures to cut Medicare payments and impose efficiencies. Future Congresses rarely live up to the se pledges. Somebody screams ―Rationing!‖ and there is a bipartisan rush to kill even the most tepid cost-saving measure. After all, if the current Congress, with pride of authorship, couldn’t reduce costs, why should we expect that future Congresses will?
The bottom line is that we face a brutal choice.
Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we’ve already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.
We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history, vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don’t get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values.
阅读理解
Obama Loses a Round
Published: November 24, 2009
While the jury is still out on what President Obama’s China visit has achieved for the long term, the president has most decidedly lost the war of symbolism in his first close encounter with China. In status-conscious China, symbolism and protocol play a role that is larger than life. U.S. diplomatic blunders could reinforce Beijing’s mindset that blatant information control works, and that a rising China can trump universal values of open, accountable government.
During Mr. Obama’s visit, the Chinese out maneuvered the Americans in all public events, from the disastrous town hall meeting in Shanghai to the stunted press conference in Beijing. In characteristic manner, the Chinese tried to shut out the public, while the U.S. unwittingly cooperated.
The final image of President Obama in China that circulated around the world is telling: A lone man walking up the steep slope of the Great Wall. The picture is in stark contrast to those of other U.S. presidents who had their photographs taken at the Great Wall surrounded by flag-waving children or admiring citizens. Maybe Mr. Obama wanted a quiet moment for himself before returning home. But a president’s first visit to the wall is a ritual that needs to be properly framed. Mr. Obama could have waited until the next visit, when he could bring the first lady and the children. Instead, he went ahead by himself to pay tribute to China’s ancient culture. In return, the Chinese offered nothing, no popular receptions, not even the companionship of a senior Chinese leader.
The trouble for the U.S. started at the town hall meeting two days earlier — a more scripted event than those organized with students for earlier U.S. presidents. There was no real dialogue, as a programmed audience, most of them Communist League Youth members, asked coached questions.
The Chinese also rejected the U.S. request for live national coverage and defaulted on a promise to live-stream the meeting at https://www.doczj.com/doc/4b2109295.html,, the online version of China’s state-owned news agency. Mr.
Obama scored a point when he managed to address the issue of Internet freedom after the U.S. ambassador, Jon Huntsman, fielded him the question from a Chinese netizen submitted online. Meanwhile, Chinese officials garnered from the meeting generous quotes from Mr. Obama affirmin g China’s achievements and America’s expressions of good will, which were turned into glowing headlines for the Chinese media. In this round of the propaganda skirmish, the U.S. scored one point while China reaped a handful.
Mr. Obama was similarly shut out from addressing the public in Beijing. At the Beijing press conference, President Hu Jintao and President Obama read prepared statements and would not take questions from reporters. ―This was an historic meeting between the two leaders, and journalists should have had the opportunity to ask questions, to probe beyond the statements,‖ protested Scott McDonald, the president of China’s Foreign Correspondents Club, but to no avail. In a final dash to break through the information blockade, the Obama team offered an exclusive interview to Southern Weekend, China’s most feisty newspaper, based in Guangzhou. Once again, journalists’ questions were programmed and the paper censored. In protest, the paper prominently displayed vast white spaces on the first and second page of the edition that carried the interview. Propaganda officials are investigating this act of defiance.
Only the Obama team knows for sure how they allowed themselves to be outmaneuvered. Unwittingly, the U.S. helped to produce a package of faux public events.
Pundits argued that the visitors were not supposed to impose the ―American way‖ on China and that America needs to respect Chinese practices. The argument is both patronizing and condescending. Increasingly, the Chinese public has been clamoring for greater official transparency and accountability, while the Chinese government has been making progress on these fronts. No one in his right mind would ask Mr. Obama to lecture Beijing on human rights. But the Chinese public deserves better accounting, no less than Americans citizens.
To their credit, U.S. officials did try to get their message out online. But it was the Chinese bloggers who were most active in challenging official information control. They at least fought the good fight with growing confidence, a fight the Americans seem unable to wage effectively.
Ying Chan is director of the Journalism and Media Studies Center at The University of Hong Kong.
英语翻译基础
1. 名词翻译
MDGS
Ban Ki-Moon
国务卿
雷曼兄弟
次贷危机
西部大开发战略
2. 英译汉（选自economist ）
A lot of things in China carry a whiff of excess. The cost of garlic is among them: wholesale prices have almost quadrupled since March. A halving of the planting area last year, and belief in the bulb's powers to ward off swine flu, provide some justification for the surge. But anecdotes of unbridled trading activity in Jinxiang county, home to China's largest garlic plant, suggest that the
most likely cause is the most obvious – the abundant liquidity swilling through the system. New loans in China may top Rmb10,000bn this year, double the run-rate of the preceding years; 2010 should bring another Rmb7-8,000bn.
In the week that Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, said asset bubbles were a cost worth paying for reviving growth through loose monetary policy, China needs to distinguish between good ones and bad ones. A bubble in garlic is small, financed by private speculators, and relatively harmless when it bursts. Bubbles in productive assets – roads, bridges, telecom lines – are also tolerable; capital has been put in place that can be exploited by somebody. But bubbles in property – financed by banks, on non-productive assets – are doubly destructive. Zhang Xin, chief executive of Soho China, one of the country's most successful privately owned developers, believes that rampant wasteful investment in commercial property has already undermined China's long-term prospects. As for housing, which China began privatising just 11 years ago, prices rose at an annualised rate of 9 per cent between September and October –significantly higher than the ongoing 2.25 per cent one-year deposit rate and the 5.31 per cent one-year lending rate. What's more, this was the eighth successive month of above-trend growth in the national house price index. So far, attempts to arrest price rises have been minor – restrictions on second home mortgages here, loan discounts in exchange for bigger down payments there. Two years ago another eight-month hot streak was enough for authorities to start cooling in earnest. They should start again now.