无忧首页企业系统我的无忧
无忧服务:
兼职活动培训
娱乐交友:
交友社区资讯
全职实习:
实习暑假寒假
微信号:school51
扫一下,立即关注
加关注
在线支付,立省10元
下载新版APP
===大学生成长生活平台===

MBA翻译练习一:2012年MBA翻译模拟题练习

2012-12-26来源/作者:卫凯点击次数:606

 本文导航
  • 第1页:MBA翻译练习一
  • 第2页:MBA翻译练习二
  • 第3页:MBA翻译练习三
  • 第4页:MBA翻译练习四
  • 第5页:MBA翻译练习五

      In the last half of the nineteenth century "capital" and "labour" were enlarging and perfecting their rival organisations on modern lines. Many an old firm was replaced by a limited liability company with a bureaucracy of salaried managers. The change met the technical requirements of the new age by engaging a large professional element and prevented the decline in efficiency that so commonly spoiled the fortunes of family firms in the second and third generation after the energetic founders. It was moreover a step away from individual initiative, towards collectivism and municipal and state-owned business. The railway companies, though still private business managed for the benefit of shareholders, were very unlike old family business. At the same time the great municipalities went into business to supply lighting, trams and other services to the taxpayers.

  The growth of the limited liability company and municipal business had important consequences. Such large, impersonal manipulation of capital and industry greatly increased the numbers and importance of shareholders as a class, an element in national life representing irresponsible wealth detached from the land and the duties of the landowners; and almost equally detached from the responsible management of business. All through the nineteenth century, America, Africa, India, Australia and parts of Europe were being developed by British capital, and British shareholders were thus enriched by the worlds movement towards industrialisation. Towns like Bournemouth and Eastbourne sprang up to house large "comfortable" classes who had retired on their incomes, and who had no relation to the rest of the community except that of drawing dividends and occasionally attending a shareholders meeting to dictate their orders to the management. On the other hand "Shareholding" meant leisure and freedom which was used by many of the later Victorians for the highest purpose of a great civilization.

  The "shareholders" as such had no knowledge of the lives, thoughts or needs of the workmen employed by the company in which he held shares, and his influence on the relations of capital and labour was not good. The paid manager acting for the company was in more direct relation with the men and their demands, but even he had seldom that familiar personal knowledge of the workmen which the employer had often had under the more patriarchal system of the old family business now passing away. Indeed the mere size of operations and the numbers of workmen involved rendered such personal relations impossible. Fortunately, however, the increasing power and organisation of the trade unions, at least in all skilled trades, enabled the workmen to meet on equal terms the managers of the companies who employed them. The cruel discipline of the strike and lockout taught the two parties to respect each others strength and understand the value of fair negotiation.

 本文导航
  • 第1页:MBA翻译练习一
  • 第2页:MBA翻译练习二
  • 第3页:MBA翻译练习三
  • 第4页:MBA翻译练习四
  • 第5页:MBA翻译练习五

  A report consistently brought back by visitors to the US is how friendly, courteous, and helpful most Americans were to them. To be fair, this observation is also frequently made of Canada and Canadians, and should best be considered North American. There are, of course, exceptions. Small-minded officials, rude waiters, and ill-mannered taxi drivers are hardly unknown in the US. Yet it is an observation made so frequently that it deserves comment.

  For a long period of time and in many parts of the country, a traveler was a welcome break in an otherwise dull existence. Dullness and loneliness were common problems of the families who generally lived distant from one another. Strangers and travelers were welcome sources of diversion, and brought news of the outside world.

  The harsh realities of the frontier also shaped this tradition of hospitality. Someone traveling alone, if hungry, injured, or ill, often had nowhere to turn except to the nearest cabin or settlement. It was not a matter of choice for the traveler or merely a charitable impulse on the part of the settlers. It reflected the harshness of daily life: if you didnt take in the stranger and take care of him, there was no one else who would. And someday, remember, you might be in the same situation.

  Today there are many charitable organizations which specialize in helping the weary traveler. Yet, the old tradition of hospitality to strangers is still very strong in the US, especially in the smaller cities and towns away from the busy tourist trails. "I was just traveling through, got talking with this American, and pretty soon heinvited me home for dinner — amazing." Such observations reported by visitors to the US are not uncommon, but are not always understood properly. The casual friendliness of many Americans should be interpreted neither as superficial nor as artificial, but as the result of a historically developed cultural tradition.

  As is true of any developed society, in America a complex set of cultural signals, assumptions, and conventions underlies all social interrelationships. And, of course, speaking a language does not necessarily mean that someone understands social and cultural patterns. Visitors who fail to "translate" cultural meanings properly often draw wrong conclusions. For example, when an American uses the word "friend", the cultural implications of the word may be quite different from those it has in the visitors language and culture. It takes more than a brief encounter on a bus to distinguish between courteous convention and individual interest. Yet, being friendly is a virtue that many Americans value highly and expect from both neighbors and strangers.

 本文导航
  • 第1页:MBA翻译练习一
  • 第2页:MBA翻译练习二
  • 第3页:MBA翻译练习三
  • 第4页:MBA翻译练习四
  • 第5页:MBA翻译练习五
  Rumor has it that more than 20 books on creationism/evolution are in the publishers pipelines. A few have already appeared. The goal of all will be to try to explain to a confused and often unenlightened citizenry that there are not two equally valid cientific theories for the origin and evolution of universe and life. Cosmology, geology, and iology have provided a consistent, unified, and constantly improving account of what happened. "Scientific" creationism, which is being pushed by some for "equal time" in the classrooms whenever the scientific accounts of evolution are given, is based on religion, not science. Virtually all scientists and the majority of non-fundamentalist religious leaders have come to regard "scientific" creationism as bad science and bad religion.

  The first four chapters of Kitchers book give a very brief introduction to evolution. At appropriate places, he introduces the criticisms of the creationists and provides answers. In the last three chapters, he takes off his gloves and gives the creationists a good beating. He describes their programmes and tactics, and, for those unfamiliar with the ways of creationists, the extent of their deception and distortion may come as an unpleasant surprise. When their basic motivation is religious, one might have expected more Christian behavior.

  Kitcher is philosopher, and this may account, in part, for the clarity And fectiveness of his arguments. The non-specialist will be able to obtain at least a notion of the sorts of data and argument that support evolutionary theory. The final chapter on the creationists will be extremely clear to all. On the dust jacket of this fine book, Stephen Jay Gould says: "This book stands for reason itself." And so it does — and all would be well were reason the only judge in the creationism/evolution debate.

 本文导航
  • 第1页:MBA翻译练习一
  • 第2页:MBA翻译练习二
  • 第3页:MBA翻译练习三
  • 第4页:MBA翻译练习四
  • 第5页:MBA翻译练习五
  Few creations of big technology capture the imagination like giant dams. Perhaps it is humankinds long suffering at the mercy of flood and drought that makes the ideal of forcing the waters to do our bidding so fascinating. But to be fascinated is also, sometimes, to be blind. Several giant dam projects threaten to do more harm than good.

  The lesson from dams is that big is not always beautiful. It doesnt help that building a big, powerful dam has become a symbol of achievement for nations and people striving to assert themselves. Egypts leadership in the Arab world was cemented by the Aswan High Dam. Turkeys bid for First World status includes the giant Ataturk Dam.

  But big dams tend not to work as intended. The Aswan Dam, for example, stopped the Nile flooding but deprived Egypt of the fertile silt that floods left — all in return for a giant reservoir of disease which is now so full of silt that it barely generates electricity.

  And yet, the myth of controlling the waters persists. This week, in the heart of civilized Europe, Slovaks and Hungarians stopped just short of sending in the troops in their contention over a dam on the Danube. The huge complex will probably have all the usual problems of big dams. But Slovakia is bidding for independence from the Czechs, and now needs a dam to prove itself.

  Meanwhile, in India, the World Bank has given the go ahead to the even more wrong-headed Narmada Dam. And the bank has done this even though its advisors say the dam will cause hardship for the powerless and environmental destruction. The benefits are for the powerful, but they are far from guaranteed.

  Proper, scientific study of the impacts of dams and of the cost and benefits of controlling water can help to resolve these conflicts. Hydroelectric power and flood control and irrigation are possible without building monster dams. But when you are dealing with myths, it is hard to be either proper, or scientific. It is time that the world learned the lessons of Aswan. You dont need a dam to be saved.

 本文导航
  • 第1页:MBA翻译练习一
  • 第2页:MBA翻译练习二
  • 第3页:MBA翻译练习三
  • 第4页:MBA翻译练习四
  • 第5页:MBA翻译练习五
  No company likes to be told it is contributing to the moral decline of a nation. "Is this what you intended to accomplish with your careers?" Senator Robert Dole asked Time Warner executives last week. "You have sold your souls, but must you corrupt our nation and threaten our children as well?" At Time Warner, however, such questions are simply the latest manifestation of the soul-searching that has involved the company ever since the company was born in 1990. Its a self-examination that has, at various times, involved issues of responsibility, creative freedom and the corporate bottom line.

  At the core of this debate is chairman Gerald Levin, 56, who took over for the late Steve Ross in 1992. On the financial front, Levin is under pressure to raise the stock price and reduce the companys mountainous debt, which will increase to $ 17.3 billion after two new cable deals close. He has promised to sell off some of the property and restructure the company, but investors are waiting impatiently.

  The flap over rap is not making life any easier for him. Levin has consistently defended the companys rap music on the grounds of expression. In 1992, when Time Warner was under fire for releasing Ice-Ts violent rap song Cop Killer, Levin described rap as lawful expression of street culture, which deserves an outlet. "The test of any democratic society," he wrote in a Wall Street Journal column, "lies not in how well it can control expression but in whether it gives freedom of thought and expression the widest possible latitude, however disputable or irritating the results may sometimes be. We wont retreat in the face of any threats."

  Levin would not comment on the debate last week, but there were signs that the chairman was backing off his hard-line stand, at least to some extent. During the discussion of rock singing verses at last months stockholders meeting. Levin asserted that "music is not the cause of societys ills" and even cited his son, a teacher in the Bronx, New York, who uses rap to communicate with students. But he talked as well about the "balanced struggle" between creative freedom and social responsibility, and he announced that the company would launch a drive to develop standards for distribution and labeling of potentially objectionable music.

  The 15-member Time Warner board is generally supportive of Levin and his corporate strategy. But insiders say several of them have shown their concerns in this matter. "Some of us have known for many, many years that the freedoms under the First Amendment are not totally unlimited," says Luce. "I think it is perhaps the case that some people associated with the company have only recently come to realize this."





相关阅读



关于我们 | 联系我们 | 用户指南 | 网站地图 | 意见建议 | 会员注册 | 用户协议 | 隐私政策