2007北京太奇培訓(xùn)學(xué)�？佳杏⒄Z強(qiáng)化班授課講義(十六)

Letter of Complaint

Dear Sirs,

    The microwave oven No. AG/5436/32, which I ordered from you, arrived on August 15.

    I very much regret to inform you that the machine has been badly damaged.當(dāng)我打開包裝時發(fā)現(xiàn)微波爐的蓋子已經(jīng)破裂a(bǔ)nd the surface of the machine had been scratched.

    Would you please let me know您是否愿意寄給我一臺新的微波爐and whether I should arrange to return the damaged one to you?

    In the meantime, I shall hold on to the machine you sent until I hear from you.

Many thanks.

Yours faithfully,

Li Ming

選擇搭配題參考譯文

    今年美國對技術(shù)應(yīng)用方面的正面和負(fù)面的新聞報道幾乎沒有什么令人驚奇之處。這確實(shí)讓我感到奇怪。好的一面，計算機(jī)的擁有率和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)連接率正在提高。在過去四年間，擁有計算機(jī)的家庭數(shù)量幾乎翻了一倍。今天，計算機(jī)作為家電已進(jìn)入了42％的美國家庭。

    這些計算機(jī)越來越多地和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)相連，在線連接僅僅在去年就超過了50％�，F(xiàn)在，超過1/4的美國家庭能在網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間漫游。

    這種爆炸式的增長幾乎是沒有任何制約的。網(wǎng)絡(luò)進(jìn)入家庭和計算機(jī)擁有率的增長延伸到各類人群中――不管他們的種族、地理位置、收入及受教育程度。

    我們認(rèn)為這個發(fā)展趨勢是有利的，因?yàn)橛嬎銠C(jī)技術(shù)可以賦予一個人開拓能力。事實(shí)上，個人的發(fā)展以及美國經(jīng)濟(jì)的繁榮都可以看作是個人和集體技術(shù)威力的長期獎勵。我個人希望這些看法是真的，同時在未來技術(shù)的發(fā)展能帶來世界和平、關(guān)愛、理解這些附產(chǎn)品。

    非常美好，是吧？現(xiàn)在說一些不怎么好的吧。政府的分析報告中出現(xiàn)了所謂的“數(shù)字化差距”。也就是說，數(shù)字化的發(fā)展速度并不是對于每個人都一樣。是的，沒錯！我們現(xiàn)在進(jìn)入互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的程度比以往任何時候都要高。但是，我們當(dāng)中有些人比另一些人進(jìn)入互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的速度要快得多，而且更深入。這種差距正在擴(kuò)大，隨著信息社會前進(jìn)的步伐越來越快。

    計算機(jī)擁有率和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)連接率，按財產(chǎn)、種族、教育、地域的不同差別很大。數(shù)據(jù)顯示，在那些富有的并且受過更高等教育的人群當(dāng)中，計算機(jī)的普遍程度和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的連接率都要高，從根本上講，是指那些富有的白人，擁有高中以及大學(xué)文憑而且是穩(wěn)定的、雙親家庭中的一員。

    收入最高的階層，那些年薪超過75，000 美元的家庭，比起那些低收入家庭（年薪只有10，000的家庭），在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)連接率上要超過20倍。家庭計算機(jī)的普及率在那些高收入人群中達(dá)到令人吃驚的76.56％。而在低收入人群中都只有8％。

    對技術(shù)的掌握按教育水平劃分，差別也很大。大學(xué)畢業(yè)的人與只受過小學(xué)教育的人中在家上網(wǎng)的人數(shù)相差16倍。如果在鄉(xiāng)村來比較這些群體差異，大學(xué)畢業(yè)的人與其差距價達(dá)到26倍，占據(jù)很大優(yōu)勢。

作業(yè)：1. 全面總結(jié)完形和英譯漢。 2. 盡快做完“復(fù)習(xí)指導(dǎo)”中相關(guān)各章的練習(xí)。

贈言：不吃苦中苦，那有甜中甜。

    祝同學(xué)們身體健康、考研成功！

張洪兵

經(jīng)濟(jì)英語 （對話）

    You mention that the regional trading blocs(集團(tuán)) need to be consistent with GATT (關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定) and multilateral(多邊的) agreements in order to fit in (相處融洽). But is there any possibility that the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group (APEC), for example, could become a rival to GATT, just because of its size?

    No, there isn’t. There is nobody as far as I know in APEC – if there is anybody they are in a very small minority – who has any intention of creating a situation where there are conflicting regional trading blocs because virtually everybody in APEC has a local market which they serve.

    So I don’t think that the prospect of creating an exclusory bloc suits anybody’s purposes. Apart from everything else I’m sure that there is a general recognition that the two giant traders in the world, the European Union and the United States, are better kept within a global system rather than regionalized where one of them is the dominant force in a particular trading arrangement.

    APEC is starting to flex its muscles(顯示實(shí)力) now and it seems that it’s going to at least want to have some dealings of its own – APEC wanting to negotiate with the European Union for example. Will that come within the GATT rules as well?

    APEC will have to be non-discriminatory and it will have to seek to be open rather than closed in its approach. I don’t think that anybody envisages (設(shè)想) APEC as having the same deep institutional depth as the European Union which is quite a different thing from anything I have heard envisaged for APEC.