2005年3月上海市中级口译笔试真题
(B) it is effective in some way.
(C) it is economical but not at all effective.
3. According to the passage, recent pollution-control legislation aims to _______.
(A) control less visible as well as less hazardous chemical pollutants.
(B) increase the costs of pollution control and waste material disposal.
(C) have more strict control over less evident but often dangerous pollutants.
(D) eliminate all the hazardous chemical and gaseous pollutants.
4. Which of the following statements is NOT true, according to the passage?
(A) Laws have been made to develop pollution-treatment systems.
(B) Pollution-treatment systems have been effective in reducing the massive
quantities of water and air pollutants.
(C) Materials from waste treatment processes can be made useful again.
(D) The cost of pollution treatment is proportionally smaller than that of damage to the environment.
5. The overall purpose of the passage is _______.
(A) to discuss the ways of and problems in pollution control
(B) to give suggestions about pollution control legislation
(C) to compare and contrast the fore approaches to pollution control
(D) to describe what has been achieved in pollution control
Questions 6-10
Democracy is so much a part of our national identity that it almost seems a birthright. But the irony is that, even as we hope to spread democracy elsewhere, we risk preaching the virtues of a form of government we no longer practice ourselves. The upcoming elections, our proudest celebration of democracy, will highlight some of the threats to our government “by the people”.
Technically, every vote is counted. But will the ballot you cast really make a difference? Not likely, unless you live in one of about 17 battleground states where the contest between President Bush and Senator Kerry could easily go either way. If you come from a state that is already locked up by one of the parties and most of us do-your vote won’t carry much weight. That’s because of our idiosyncratic electoral college system.
Rather than being elected directly by the people, the President would be chosen by a group of electors appointed by the state legislatures-with the number of electors determined by the state’s total number of representatives to Congress and U.S. Senators. By allotting two Senators to each state, our founders enabled small states to wield an influence greater than their populations alone would warrant, ensuring that the most populous states wouldn’t decide every Presidential election. But here’s the rub: When it comes to those electoral votes, it’s winner-take-all (except in Maine, and Nebraska). Get more popular votes, even if only by one, and you grab all of the state’s electoral votes.
There’s yet another way that the electoral system undermines our vote. In 2000, the Presidential campaigns largely ignore the 33 states that weren’t up for grabs. Even California, Texas and New York-states offering many electoral votes but little partisan competition-fell by the wayside. If victory or defeat depended on the popular vote, then candidates would have to work for each one. Instead, they decide which states are in play, and go after the voter there. They rarely visit other places and the majority of us don’s experience a real campaign.
Here’s one idea that could help us in future Presidential elections.
In a number of countries, they have a system of direct popular vote, but with a critical provision, in the event that no one wins by a majority, they hold an “instant runoff”. That’s done by allowing voters to register not only their first choice among the candidates, by also their second and third. if a runoff is needed (say, if the winner among several candidates has less than 50 percent of vote). You can eliminate the candidate with the lowest tally, and transfer his or her supporters to the second choice on their ballots. This process can play out until there is a clear
