考研2010英文翻译

中英文表述的差异。文中所说的数据是某一种方法或试验推出来的数据，可以理解为结果被应用到分析中，这样是合理的。subject 词源上有影响的意思，文中的语境下翻译成应用于同样是合理的。subject to 的基本意思是1.使服从,使遭受 2.容易遭受 ；受...管制直译的话是，几十年后，同一数据遭受了经济分析。（那个数据被经济分析这种方法，分析了一下）意译的话，是，几十年后，同一数据被用于经济分析中.

是不是指“你不能在赌博中赢一分钱”然后就意译成了“你对赌博一窍不通”括号中部分直译为（但是你无法通过赌博来赚取一分钱），变相理解就是（你根本不懂赌博）吧

1. to have/sit for/take postgraate entrance exams2. postgraate entrance examsExamination for postgraate

以下是上外2010年翻译硕士（MTI）考试的真题，贴出来你看看吧 【翻译硕士二外】一、完形填空（全文录入，题目省略）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 alts 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 proctive 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 rece the suffering of the vulnerable while simultaneously squeezing money out of the wasteful system and freeing it up for more proctive uses.That’s what 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 recing costs, the bills in Congress would probably raise them. They would mean that more of the nation’s wealth would be siphoned off from proctive 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 at 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.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 understate 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 these 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 rece 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. 二、阅读理解，回答问题Obama Loses a Round 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 outmaneuvered 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 Xinhua.net, 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 affirming 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 proce 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. 三、写作。题目是 《waste not， want not》 【英语翻译基础】一、名词解释MDGS Millennium Development Goals 千禧年发展计划Ban Ki-moon 潘基文国务卿 Secretary of State雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers)次贷危机subprime lending crisis西部大开发战略strategy of western development 二、英译中China's bubblesA 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 proctive 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-proctive 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你想报哪个学校呢？每个学校的侧重点不同，我建议你给你选中的学校打电话订购试卷。现在买还不晚……翻译硕士包括：基础英语，翻译，政治，综合

2010年的考研英语的出题者们，不管你们是基于什么原因把题出成这样，你们已经得到考生的鄙视，你们，同中国的教育制度，考试制度一起，终将有一天，会得到历史公正的评判，你们也终将被历史的车轮无情的碾的粉碎。 ------复习了200多天真题仔细做了六七遍拿到卷子小作文－－－第一年考通知－－蒙了－－大作文－－－文化火锅－－－锅里的单词都不会－－而且这么抽象的图，难定位新题型－－－天啊，辅导班老师再三说不会考这个，因为没有区分度阅读第一篇－－－看不懂，三遍后，还看不懂，心砰砰跳阅读第二篇－－－天啊，是什么啊，眼泪当场要出来了。。。。。。不想再描述那个痛苦的过程教育部，出这样的题有什么意义？。。。！！！！！！！

吧，我给你发一份电子版的！！！

翻译学啊，这个专业就业非常火的，其他的来说都是比较理论的，专业性不是非常强！英语语言文学和外国语言学及应用语言学是今年来考研的热点，你可以参考！从近些年外国语言学及应用语言学专业全国总体招生数量来看个别院校有些调整，与零七年比较，呈现出略有增加的趋势。如上海外国语大学，广东外语外贸大学等高等院校。部分院校在该专业上排名的浮动，为09年报考外国语言学及应用语言学专业考生选择报考院校做了一定程度上的参考。其实选择专业和院校不是这样盲目的问的，因为很多人对你说的东西并不了解~我推荐一些视频给你，老师会指导你选择专业和院校，还会对考研的流程、怎么备考等相关信息给你指导，这才是正确的方法！《2010年考研入门指导》《2010年考研初期三大选择》不方便粘网址，怕说是广告，呵呵，你自己搜一下就可以！这也是别人推荐给我的，听过之后启发很大，和你分享.这样自己学着去给自己解决问题！呵呵，希望能帮到你哈，北外的“翻译理论与实践”和“英汉互译”两个专业只考翻译，不考文学。

普遍认为，英语二难度与四级相当，英语一的难度比六级更难一点，但是这个对比不是绝对性的，因为考研英语重中没有听力，然后阅读在考研英语中占有的比重很大。从2010年开始，全国硕士研究生入学考试的英语试卷分为了英语（一）和英语（二）。  英语（一）即原研究生入学统考“英语”，所有学术型硕士研究生（英语专业选考其他语种）（十三大门类，110个一级学科）和部分专业型硕士（法律硕士、临床医学硕士、口腔医学硕士、建筑学硕士、护理硕士、汉语国际教育硕士、公共卫生硕士等）必考英语（一）。 英语（二）主要是为高等院校和科研院所招收不考英语（一）的专业学位硕士研究生而设置的具有选拔性质的统考科目。英语（一）考试内容试题分三部分，共52题，包括英语知识运用、阅读理解和写作。1.考研英语英语知识运用考查考生对不同语境中规范的语言要素（包括词汇、表达方式和结构）的掌握程度，而且还考查考生对语段特征（如连贯性和一致性等）的辨识能力等。共20小题，每小题0.5分，共10分。在一篇240-280词的文章中留出20个空白，要求考生从每题给出的4个选项中选出最佳答案。2.考研英语阅读理解由A、B、C三节组成，考查考生理解书面英语的能力。共30小题，每小题2分，共60分。A节（20小题）：主要考查考生理解主旨要义、具体信息、概念性含义，进行有关的判断、推理和引申，根据上下文推测生词的词义等能力。要求考生根据所提供的4篇（总长度约为1600词）文章的内容，从每题所给出的4个选项中选出最佳答案。考生在答题卡1上作答。B节（5小题）：主要考查考生对诸如连贯性、一致性等语段特征以及文章结构的理解。考生在答题卡1上作答。3.考研英语写作由A、B两节组成，主要考查考生的书面表达能力。共30分。  A节：题型有两种，每次考试选择其中的一种形式。1）考生根据所给情景写出约100词（标点符号不计算在内）的应用性短文，包括私人和公务信函、备忘录、报告等。2）要求考生根据所提供的汉语文章，用英语写出一篇80-100词的文章摘要。  B节：考生根据提示信息写出一篇160-200词的短文（标点符号不计算在内）。提示信息的形式有主题句、写作提纲、规定情景、图、表等。考生在答题卡2上作答。共20分。英语是研究生考试的必考科目，而单词是英语能否考好的核心所在。单词是英语的基础，只有单词巩固了，完型，阅读，写作都可以看成单词的具体应用，所以大家要重视单词，就是到了冲刺阶段也不能忽略单词的复习。复习单词是一个长期积累的过程，少量重复多次是复习的不二法门。

网上答案有错。有道阅读明显问的是言外之意，写那个答案的人却没看出来。完形虽然不能保证全对，不过答案的正确率应该在90%以上。按答案我客观题35分，翻译一般，两个作文都是最后20分钟赶出来的，没有仔细构思，想到什么写什么，小作文还弄错格式。我是福建的，本来以为55，后来出来62.另外有些学校是把所有人成绩都列出来的，考研论坛上有人比较过多所学校，得出结论今年英语平均分比去年低5分左右。我自己看了下沈阳药科大学的，平均了下，英语平均分43.05，比去年低5，政治比去年低2，好像是57，我记不得了。总分也比去年低了9分祝你好运吧！什么都别瞎想，等待结果吧，现在乱想也没用，让一切顺其自然吧，放松一点。不管结果怎么样，都没什么大不了的。祝你天天开心^_^