2010英语考研真题解析

去百度文库，查看完整内容>内容来自用户:水瓶小猪笑哈哈2010年全国硕士研究生入学统一考试英语（二）试题答案与解析Section I Use of EnglishDirections:　　Read the following passage. For each numbered blank there are four choices marked A, B, C and D. Choose the best one and mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET l. (10 points)　The outbreak of swine flu that was first detected inMexicowas declared a global epidemic on June 11, 2009. It is the first worldwide epidemic_____1_____ by the World Health Organization in 41 years.The heightened alert _____2_____an emergency meeting with flu experts inGenevathat convened after a sharp rise in cases inAustralia, and rising_____3_____inBritain,Japan,Chileand elsewhere.But the epidemic is "_____4_____" in severity, according to Margaret Chan, the organization's director general, _____5_____ the overwhelming majority of patients experiencing only mild symptoms and a full recovery, often in the _____6_____ of any medical treatment.The outbreak came to global_____7_____in late April 2009, when Mexican authorities noticed an unusually large number of hospitalizations and deaths_____8_____healthy alts. As much ofMexico Cityshut down at the height of a panic, cases began to _____9__

去百度文库，查看完整内容>内容来自用户:度米文库2010年英语一答案解析【篇一：2010年考研英语二真题全文翻译答案超详解析】解析section i use of english一、文章题材结构分析本文是取材于新闻报道，叙述了猪流感的爆发，产生的严重影响以及政府采取的针对性措施。首段和第二段简述了猪流感的爆发引起世界各国的重视。第三段引用专家的观点，认为瘟疫并不严重。第四段和第五段以墨西哥及美国的情况为例，说明了猪流感的严重性和致命性。第六段叙述了联邦政府针对猪流感的具体措施。二、试题解析1.【答案】d【解析】上文提到“? was declared a global epidemic?”，根据declare的逻辑（“宣布为”），可知应该选d项designated“命名，制定”，而不是c项commented“评论”，这是典型的近义词复现题目。2．【答案】c【解析】本题目可依据“句意”找到意思线索，选出答案，难度在于出处句是个长难句。本句的理解应该抓住alert、meeting和a sharp rise三者的关系，根据after a sharp rise可知是rise（“病例数的增加”）是meeting（“日内瓦专家会议”）的原因，由此可推导出alert并非是meeting的原因，而是结果，即meeting使得alert升级。根据上述分析可以排除b、d选项，b项activated“激活，激起”，d项“促使，引起”，此两项的选择都在讲alert导致了meeting6avaccinefor“1924年开始到bilski1.—thank you for help,peter.a. to hearb. to be heard c. being heard d. heari

去百度文库，查看完整内容>内容来自用户:你的娜塔萨默默学考研2010考研（英语二）真题及答案SectionIUseofEnglishDirections:Readthefollowingpassage.ForeachnumberedblanktherearefourchoicesmarkedA,B,CandD..(10points)owasdeclaredaglobalpandemiconJune11,2009,nofaworldwidepandemicin41years.casesinAustralia,andrisingnumbersinBritain,Japan,Chileandelsewhere.Butthepandemicis"moderate"inseverity,accordingtoMargaretChan,theorganization'sdirectorgeneral,gonlymildsymptomsandafullrecovery,oftenintheabsenceofanymedicaltreatment.TheoutbreakcametoglobalnoticeinlateApril2009,berofhospitalizationsanddeathsamonghealthyalts.AsmuchofMexicoCityshutdownattheheightofapanic,casesbegantocropupinNewYorkCity,thesouthwesternUnitedState

去百度文库，查看完整内容>内容来自用户:zn13841205935对于真题的使用方法，有以下几点需要说明：不要盲目做真题！那是浪费资源！建议大家采用一下介绍的“六遍法”，以最大限度榨干真题价值！（每遍适当间隔一段时间效果会更好）第一遍：严格按照考试时间，创造最贴近考试的环境来完成真题。第二遍：摘抄生词，长句进行记忆分析，进一步熟悉文章，正面分析正确选择项，使自己的思路初步贴近出题人的思路。看答案的时候最好不要看相关的分析，因为这样可能会让自己的思路跟着出书人跑。另外，你需要对出的题目有一个分类了，例如细节题目，作者态度题目，例证题目，文章主旨题目等等，为以后的进一步总结应对策略打下基础。第三遍：反面分析错误选择项（至关重要！）主要应该主要从4个方面着手：1、对比正确选项和错误选项，找出其差异所在。在知道了为什么正确答案为什么正确的基础上找出错误的原因，出题人为什么要用这个错误选项来迷惑我们——用的是偷换概念还是以小代大？同意互换的修饰成分是否遗漏？作者观点题目答案给的是不是有出题人主观倾向以及这种倾向是不是可以作为规律来对待？等等等等。二、把错误选择项带到原文中，看看出题人是怎么把作者意图和事实歪曲的。关于这点你可以分析完10篇来一个总结，你会很惊奇的发现：原来每道题目错误选项的来路是这么的相似！以后再见到这种错误选项的时候很大程度上你就能感觉到什么应该是正确的什么是错误的了（这就是你和出题人思路的接近过程）。四、把自己当成出题人来思考（换位

你好，我是大大大大鱼儿，用百度网盘分享给你，点开就可以保存，链接永久有效^_^链接:  提取码: 22vt

去百度文库，查看完整内容>内容来自用户:conquerorFS2010－2013年考研英语二新题型2013年新题型You are going to read a list of headings and a text. Choose the most suitable heading from the list A-F for each numbered paragraph (41-45).Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET1. (10 points)[A] Live like a peasant[B] Balance your diet[C] Shopkeepers are your friends[D] Remember to treat yourself[E] Stick to what you need[F] Planning is evervthing[G] Waste not, want notThe hugely popular blog the Skint Foodie chronicles how Tony balances his love of good food with living on benefits. After bills, Tony has ?60 a week to spend, ?40 of which goes on food, but 10 years ago he was earning ?130,000 a I year working in corporate communications and eating at London's betft restaurants'" at least twice a week. Then his marriage failed, his career burned out and his drinking became serious. "The community mental health team saved my life. And I felt like that again, to a certain degree, when people responded to the blog so well. It gave me the validation and confidence that I'd lost. But it's still a day-by-day thing." Now he's living in a council flat and fielding offers from literary agents. He's feeling positive,

考过就忘了一干二净的。。。个人觉得第二个难。

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

你在考研吗？买的英语作文资料里都有历年的考研作文真题，你没有买吗？马上就要考研了吧？我建议你就直接背考研班或者作文资料里给的作文模板，作文肯定拿高分。我是过来人，去年刚参加完考研，我和我宿舍的三个人都是这样搞的，最后英语全都50以上。我宿舍的那个英语四级都没有过，最后居然考了59分。