外文賞析21-30.docx

21.Can you spank kids and be foster parent？Mass. high court says on本文選自2016年1月8日基督教科學(xué)箴言報(bào)中“Can you spank kids and be foster parent? Mass. high court says on ”。本文是一篇典型的法律裁決類(lèi)閱讀，此類(lèi)文章通常文中各方觀點(diǎn)交織，論點(diǎn)論據(jù)頗為復(fù)雜。專(zhuān)家、學(xué)者、群眾、政府機(jī)構(gòu)和司法立法機(jī)關(guān)各方各執(zhí)一詞，再加上作者個(gè)人的感情傾向，不便于讀者理清脈絡(luò)。如果考研遇到這樣的文章，看文章的時(shí)候要保持清醒，理清各方觀點(diǎn)，做題的時(shí)候不要代入讀者個(gè)人的感情看待問(wèn)題，關(guān)鍵就在于抓住問(wèn)題的核心，跟著文章思路發(fā)散思維。原文I When Melanie and Greg Magazu decided to open their family to foster children, they say the social worker who inspected their home was impressed. The couple had two young daughters, and Melanie used to be in foster care herself.II But the couple say the situation changed when they acknowledged that they spank their kids as a form of discipline, in line with their interpretation of the Bible. They said they would refrain from using corporal punishment on foster children in their care, but refused to stop spanking their own children. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) rejected their application in 2013, citing “clinical policy” to keep foster children out of homes where corporal punishment was used. Claiming religious discrimination, the Magazus sued. The states highest court unanimously ruled in favor of the agency Monday, prioritizing the states interest in protecting children in foster care. Complicating matters is the question of spanking, which remains a fraught one in America.III Child development experts and medical boards including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association almost uniformly oppose the practice and cite research dating to the 1990s showing it can lead to aggressive and harmful behaviors in children. The Magazus, like many religious parents, say the Bible explicitly condones the use of corporal punishment. They say they spanked their daughters with an open hand in the privacy of their bedrooms so as not to humiliate them. DCF cited concerns that living in a home where corporal punishment was employed in itself could potentially harm foster children, who have been removed from their parents due to abuse or neglect. IVThose who have studied corporal punishment say that it is too extreme to categorize spanking as invariably harmful. In fact, other disciplinary methods also can have troubling consequences sometimes even more severe such as excessive yelling, says Ronald Rohner, who has studied the effects of corporal punishment for 30 years. Dr. Larzelere, a professor of human development and family science at Oklahoma State University and expert on parental discipline, cites research that shows the vast majority of children, 70 to 80 percent, are spanked by the time they reach 18.V “Lets say that somewhere around 80 percent of parents with 3- or 4-year-olds still spank their children occasionally,” says Larzelere. “This means that if we go with this ruling, then 80 percent of all parents are unfit to be foster parents, and thats extreme.”（“Can you spank kids and be foster parent? Mass. high court says on” by Cathaleen Chen, January 8, 2016 The Christian Science Monitor ）詞匯短語(yǔ)1. foster children. 收養(yǎng)兒童2. * spank spk vt. 打的屁股；拍擊3. in line with 按照，符合4. *refrain rfren vi.克制 refrain from 克制而不做5. *corporal krprl adj. 身體的6. discriminationd,skrmnen n. 歧視7. sue su vt. 控告8. unanimously jnnmsli adv全體一致的9. * condone kndon vt. 寬恕注：標(biāo)*為超綱詞翻譯點(diǎn)評(píng)I When Melanie and Greg Magazu decided to open their family to foster children, they say the social worker who inspected their home was impressed. The couple had two young daughters, and Melanie used to be in foster care herself.I When Melanie and Greg Magazu decided to open their family to foster children, they say the social worker who inspected their home was impressed. The couple had two young daughters, and Melanie used to be in foster care herself.翻譯：當(dāng)馬蘭尼和格雷馬格祖決定向收養(yǎng)兒童敞開(kāi)家門(mén)的時(shí)候，這讓視察他們家庭情況的社會(huì)工作者頗為印象深刻。因?yàn)?，這對(duì)夫婦已生育了兩個(gè)小女兒，馬蘭尼本人就曾經(jīng)是收養(yǎng)兒童。點(diǎn)評(píng)：段I 介紹本文的背景，即一對(duì)夫婦想要收養(yǎng)孩子?！癷mpressed”是褒義詞，暗含了作者對(duì)這對(duì)夫妻的欣賞。II But the couple say the situation changed when they acknowledged that they spank their kids as a form of discipline, in line with their interpretation of the Bible. They said they would refrain from using corporal punishment on foster children in their care, but refused to stop spanking their own children. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) rejected their application in 2013, citing “clinical policy” to keep foster children out of homes where corporal punishment was used. Claiming religious discrimination, the Magazus sued. The states highest court unanimously ruled in favor of the agency Monday, prioritizing the states interest in protecting children in foster care. Complicating matters is the question of spanking, which remains a fraught one in America.翻譯：但當(dāng)這對(duì)夫妻承認(rèn)他們借鑒圣經(jīng)教義，把體罰作為一種教育孩子的方式時(shí)，情況發(fā)生了變化。他們說(shuō)今后會(huì)繼續(xù)體罰親生孩子，但絕不對(duì)收養(yǎng)兒童進(jìn)行體罰。但家庭兒童部援引“臨床策略”拒絕了他們的收養(yǎng)請(qǐng)求。馬格祖以宗教歧視為由，對(duì)家庭兒童部的這一決定進(jìn)行了上訴。周一州最高法院一致支持了家庭兒童部的決定，擁護(hù)該州政府保護(hù)收養(yǎng)兒童。體罰問(wèn)題的復(fù)雜情況，這也是美國(guó)社會(huì)向來(lái)頭疼的問(wèn)題。點(diǎn)評(píng)：段II是本文雙方立場(chǎng)的第一次交鋒，也是理清本文思路的關(guān)鍵。本段出現(xiàn)了三個(gè)主體，馬格祖夫婦，家庭社會(huì)兒童部，州最高法院。家庭兒童部是政府機(jī)構(gòu)，州法院是法律機(jī)關(guān)。馬格祖夫婦以宗教歧視為由狀告家庭兒童部，被州高院裁定為敗訴。文中的“spank”, “corporal punishment”為同義詞，是“體罰”的兩種說(shuō)法。III Child development experts and medical boards including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association almost uniformly oppose the practice and cite research dating to the 1990s showing it can lead to aggressive and harmful behaviors in children. The Magazus, like many religious parents, say the Bible explicitly condones the use of corporal punishment. They say they spanked their daughters with an open hand in the privacy of their bedrooms so as not to humiliate them. DCF cited concerns that living in a home where corporal punishment was employed in itself could potentially harm foster children, who have been removed from their parents due to abuse or neglect. 翻譯：兒童發(fā)展專(zhuān)家及美國(guó)兒科心理學(xué)會(huì)的醫(yī)學(xué)董事會(huì)幾乎一致反對(duì)體罰兒童，他們引用19世紀(jì)90年代的研究，論證體罰會(huì)使兒童滋生攻擊性的有害行為。和其他很多家庭一樣，馬格祖稱(chēng)，圣經(jīng)對(duì)體罰行為有明確的寬恕，他們用手掌在孩子的房間里私下體罰她們，因此不會(huì)羞辱到她們。根據(jù)以往的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，家庭事務(wù)部擔(dān)憂的是，鑒于收養(yǎng)兒童大多出自具有家庭暴力或者缺乏關(guān)愛(ài)的家庭，所以體罰會(huì)對(duì)他們產(chǎn)生潛在的危害。點(diǎn)評(píng)：段III是本文雙方立場(chǎng)的第二次交鋒。馬格祖夫婦對(duì)他們的宗教立場(chǎng)進(jìn)行闡明，家庭兒童部后方有學(xué)者專(zhuān)家的支持和例證。從本段看來(lái)，家庭兒童部貌似占了上風(fēng)。IVThose who have studied corporal punishment say that it is too extreme to categorize spanking as invariably harmful. In fact, other disciplinary methods also can have troubling consequences sometimes even more severe such as excessive yelling, says Ronald Rohner, who has studied the effects of corporal punishment for 30 years. Dr. Larzelere, a professor of human development and family science at Oklahoma State University and expert on parental discipline, cites research that shows the vast majority of children, 70 to 80 percent, are spanked by the time they reach 18.翻譯：研究體罰的學(xué)者羅納德稱(chēng)，把體罰統(tǒng)一歸為有害行為太過(guò)極端了。實(shí)際上，其他教育方式也會(huì)產(chǎn)生不良后果，有時(shí)甚至?xí)鼮閲?yán)重，比如說(shuō)對(duì)孩子過(guò)度吼叫。羅納德從事體罰的影響研究長(zhǎng)達(dá)三十多年。奧克拉瑪州立大學(xué)的人類(lèi)發(fā)展和家庭科學(xué)教授拉茲拉瑞博士，基于研究指出，百分之70到80的孩子在18歲之前都經(jīng)受過(guò)體罰。點(diǎn)評(píng)：段IV開(kāi)始出現(xiàn)轉(zhuǎn)折，也從專(zhuān)家學(xué)者的角度尋找例證，對(duì)家庭兒童部的觀點(diǎn)予以抨擊。尤其是作者援引羅納德專(zhuān)家的觀點(diǎn)時(shí)，特別之處，此人 “has studied the effects of corporal punishment for 30 years”，使羅納德的觀點(diǎn)更具可信度。V “Lets say that somewhere around 80 percent of parents with 3- or 4-year-olds still spank their children occasionally,” says Larzelere. “This means that if we go with this ruling, then 80 percent of all parents are unfit to be foster parents, and thats extreme.”翻譯：“可以說(shuō)，三四歲孩子的家長(zhǎng)，有百分之八十會(huì)時(shí)不時(shí)體罰他們的孩子”，拉茲拉瑞博士說(shuō)?！斑@就意味著，如果我們執(zhí)行州立法院的裁決，那么有百分之八十的父母都不適合收養(yǎng)孩子，這就陷入極端了?！秉c(diǎn)評(píng)：段V引用拉茲拉瑞博士的話，對(duì)家庭兒童部的做法進(jìn)行否定，可謂是一擊中地：法院對(duì)家庭兒童部的支持性裁決顯然會(huì)最終使兒童收養(yǎng)無(wú)法進(jìn)行。22.How colleges can measure up in teaching critical thinking本文選自基督教科學(xué)箴言報(bào)一篇名為 “How colleges can measure up in teaching critical thinking” 的文章，圍繞美國(guó)普渡大學(xué)一項(xiàng)旨在衡量學(xué)生批判性思維能力培養(yǎng)進(jìn)程、從而為教授這項(xiàng)能力提供參考的試行項(xiàng)目展開(kāi)論述，通過(guò)對(duì)新近公布的一項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果、實(shí)驗(yàn)不足的介紹，作者間接表達(dá)了對(duì)普渡大學(xué)試行項(xiàng)目最終效果的憂慮。結(jié)合美國(guó)高校與就業(yè)市場(chǎng)的實(shí)際需求，作者在最后提出了中肯的建議。本文討論的內(nèi)容對(duì)中國(guó)高校人才培養(yǎng)模式也有充分的借鑒意義，希望讀者通過(guò)對(duì)這篇文章的分析引起反思。原文I After he became president of Purdue University in 2013, Mitch Daniels asked the faculty to prove that their students have actually achieved one of higher educations most important goals: critical thinking skills. Two years before, a nationwide study of college graduates had shown that more than a third had made no significant gains in such mental abilities during their four years in school.II Purdue now has a pilot test to assess the critical thinking skills of students as they progress. Yet like many college teachers around the United States, the Purdue faculty remain doubtful that their work as educators can be measured by a “l(fā)earning outcome”, such as a graduates ability to investigate, reason, and put facts in context. Many still prefer the traditional system of course grades in specific fields or overall grade averages, despite serious concerns by employers about “grade inflation.”III The professors need not worry so much. This week, the results of a nationwide experiment were released showing for the first time that professors can use standardized metrics to assess the actual coursework of students across many schools and disciplines and measure how well they do in three key areas: critical thinking, written communication, and quantitative literacy.IV Despite the success of the project in showing that teachers can design such assessments, the actual results are worrisome, and mostly confirm earlier studies. Of the students who attended a four-year institution and who completed most of their coursework, fewer than a third of their finished assignments earned a high score for a critical thinking skill (“using evidence to investigate a point of view or reach a conclusion”). Less than half of their coursework drew “appropriate conclusions based on quantitative analysis of data.”The project organizers summed it up this way: “Of the three outcomes evaluated, far fewer students were achieving at high levels on a variety of dimensions of critical thinking than did so for written communication or quantitative literacy.” And that conclusion is based only on students nearing graduation. The project did not measure the work of students who have completed less than 75 percent of their coursework.American universities, despite their global reputation for excellence in teaching, have only begun to demonstrate what they can produce in real-world learning. Knowledge-based degrees are still important. But given the pace of discoveries in many fields, employers are demanding advanced thinking skills from college grads.If faculty can now work with college presidents, government leaders, and others to accurately measure the intellectual worth of a college degree, more people will seek higher education and come out better thinkers. ( “How colleges can measure up in teaching critical thinking”, By the Monitors Editorial Board. The Christian Science Monitor. Sep. 28, 2015)詞匯短語(yǔ)1.faculty fklti n.全體教員2.pilot test 試行項(xiàng)目3.assess ss vt. 評(píng)定；估價(jià)4.inflation nflen n. 膨脹；5.metric mtrk a.米制的,公制的6.quantitative literacy 數(shù)理能力7.worrisome wsm adj. 令人煩惱的，派生自worry v.煩惱;n.煩惱,焦慮8.demonstrate dmnstret vt. 證明；展示翻譯點(diǎn)評(píng)I After he became president of Purdue University in 2013, Mitch Daniels asked the faculty to prove that their students have actually achieved one of higher educations most important goals: critical thinking skills. Two years before, a nationwide study of college graduates had shown that more than a third had made no significant gains in such mental abilities during their four years in school.翻譯：米奇丹尼爾斯于在2013年出任普渡大學(xué)的校長(zhǎng)后，他要求全體教師證明本校學(xué)生真正實(shí)現(xiàn)了高等教育的最重要目標(biāo)之一：批判性思維能力。 兩年前，一項(xiàng)針對(duì)全國(guó)高校畢業(yè)生的研究表明，通過(guò)四年的在校學(xué)習(xí)，超過(guò)三分之一的學(xué)生表示在這一心智能力的培養(yǎng)上收獲寥寥。點(diǎn)評(píng)：段I介紹本項(xiàng)目得以開(kāi)展的關(guān)鍵人物及背景。米奇丹尼爾斯出任普渡大學(xué)的校長(zhǎng)，認(rèn)為批判性思維能力是大學(xué)最重要的培養(yǎng)目標(biāo)之一，希望教師證明他們的學(xué)生確確實(shí)實(shí)達(dá)到了這個(gè)目標(biāo)。句中的actually表明校長(zhǎng)希望把這項(xiàng)能力的培養(yǎng)結(jié)果以一種具象的方式展現(xiàn)出來(lái)，讓人一看便能信服，比如用數(shù)字說(shuō)話。句從點(diǎn)過(guò)渡到面，在更大層面上交代了一種現(xiàn)狀：全國(guó)超過(guò)三分之一的高校畢業(yè)生在批判性思維能力養(yǎng)成方面一無(wú)所獲，一方面解釋了丹尼爾斯出任校長(zhǎng)后對(duì)教師提出上述要求的原因，另一方面體現(xiàn)出美國(guó)高校人才培養(yǎng)方式中欠缺對(duì)此項(xiàng)能力培養(yǎng)的重視，暗示丹尼爾斯立足本校，意欲改革高校培養(yǎng)模式的決心，為他主導(dǎo)推出項(xiàng)目做鋪墊。II Purdue now has a pilot test to assess the critical thinking skills of students as they progress. Yet like many college teachers around the United States, the Purdue faculty remain doubtful that their work as educators can be measured by a “l(fā)earning outcome”, such as a graduates ability to investigate, reason, and put facts in context. Many still prefer the traditional system of course grades in specific fields or overall grade averages, despite serious concerns by employers about “grade inflation.”翻譯：普渡大學(xué)如今有了一項(xiàng)試行項(xiàng)目，旨在衡量學(xué)生在培養(yǎng)批判性思維能力中的進(jìn)展情況。但是，就像很多美國(guó)的大學(xué)老師想的一樣，普渡大學(xué)的教職工們對(duì)仍然采“學(xué)習(xí)成果”例如，畢業(yè)生調(diào)查、推理及理論聯(lián)系實(shí)際的能力來(lái)衡量教育者的工作表示懷疑。很多老師仍寧愿選擇采用單一課程成績(jī)或總體平均成績(jī)的傳統(tǒng)評(píng)價(jià)系統(tǒng)，雖然這套體系也為用人單位所詬病，認(rèn)為存在“分?jǐn)?shù)虛高”情況。點(diǎn)評(píng)：段II 介紹傳統(tǒng)評(píng)價(jià)體系在教師隊(duì)伍中根深蒂固，是項(xiàng)目推行的潛在障礙。句中的now暗示從丹尼爾斯2013年出任校長(zhǎng)向教師提出要求、萌生改革之心到項(xiàng)目試行的良久籌備過(guò)程。句補(bǔ)充說(shuō)明項(xiàng)目雖已在試行，但教師隊(duì)伍觀念守舊，對(duì)新項(xiàng)目的開(kāi)展存在疑慮。句中的inflation原意指“膨脹”，此處引申為分?jǐn)?shù)“虛高”，側(cè)面反映出原有分?jǐn)?shù)體系存在問(wèn)題，已與就業(yè)市場(chǎng)對(duì)畢業(yè)生的需求產(chǎn)生脫節(jié)。III The professors need not worry so much. This week, the results of a nationwide experiment were released showing for the first time that professors can use standardized metrics to assess the actual coursework of students across many schools and disciplines and measure how well they do in three key areas: critical thinking, written communication, and quantitative literacy.翻譯：其實(shí)，教授們沒(méi)必要這么擔(dān)心。本周第一次公布了一項(xiàng)全國(guó)范圍的實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果，表明教授可以采用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的度量方式衡量學(xué)生的實(shí)際作業(yè)情況（該實(shí)驗(yàn)對(duì)象遍及眾多學(xué)校，涵蓋多門(mén)學(xué)科），并考量學(xué)生在以下三個(gè)關(guān)鍵模塊的表現(xiàn)情況：批判性思維、書(shū)面表達(dá)和數(shù)理能力。點(diǎn)評(píng)：段III 承接上段，轉(zhuǎn)而指出這種擔(dān)心是不必要的，因?yàn)橛幸豁?xiàng)全國(guó)范圍的實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果表明學(xué)生的批判性思維能力養(yǎng)成過(guò)程是可以通過(guò)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的度量來(lái)評(píng)估的。句破折號(hào)中的內(nèi)容across many schools and disciplines補(bǔ)充說(shuō)明該實(shí)驗(yàn)的樣本范圍，體現(xiàn)實(shí)驗(yàn)的科學(xué)性。冒號(hào)后面表明該實(shí)驗(yàn)的考察模塊，其中之一便是“批判性思維”，因此其實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果能為普渡大學(xué)試行項(xiàng)目提供參考。IV Despite the success of the project in showing that teachers can design such assessments, the actual results are worrisome, and mostly confirm earlier studies. Of the students who attended a four-year institution and who completed most of their coursework, fewer than a third of their finished assignments earned a high score for a critical thinking skill (“using evidence to investigate a point of view or reach a conclusion”). Less than half of their coursework drew “appropriate conclusions based on quantitative analysis of data.”翻譯：雖然這項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)證明老師確實(shí)可以設(shè)計(jì)這樣的評(píng)價(jià)體系，但實(shí)際實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果令人擔(dān)憂，而且大部分結(jié)論證實(shí)了以往的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)。這些學(xué)生在大學(xué)度過(guò)了四年的時(shí)間，幾乎完成了所有課程，但在他們完成的所有任務(wù)中，只有不到三分之一的比例在批判性思維能力（“利用證據(jù)調(diào)研某個(gè)觀點(diǎn)或得出某種結(jié)論”）這項(xiàng)上得到了高分。不到一半的作業(yè)獲得“是基于對(duì)數(shù)據(jù)的定量分析得出的合理結(jié)論”的評(píng)價(jià)。點(diǎn)評(píng)：段IV介紹這項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)令人擔(dān)憂的實(shí)驗(yàn)發(fā)現(xiàn)。句despite表明與上文的銜接關(guān)系，先退而肯定這項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)證明了老師可以建立科學(xué)的評(píng)價(jià)體系衡量學(xué)生的批判性思維培養(yǎng)過(guò)程，暗示普渡大學(xué)試行項(xiàng)目的理念得到了實(shí)驗(yàn)支持，接著轉(zhuǎn)而明確指出實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果令人憂慮，而且大部分（mostly）結(jié)論都印證了以往的研究，暗示該實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果尚算參考價(jià)值高。句具體對(duì)實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果展開(kāi)論述，fewer than a third， less than half 均從比例上表明學(xué)生在批判性思維能力方面表現(xiàn)不理想。The project organizers summed it up this way: “Of the three outcomes evaluated, far fewer students were achieving at high levels on a variety of dimensions of critical thinking than did so for written communication or quantitative literacy.” And that conclusion is based only on students nearing graduation. The project did not measure the work of students who have completed less than 75 percent of their coursework.翻譯：項(xiàng)目組織方總結(jié)說(shuō)：“綜合評(píng)估這三個(gè)模塊后發(fā)現(xiàn)，相較于在書(shū)面表達(dá)和數(shù)理能力方面的良好表現(xiàn)，能在包含好幾個(gè)維度的批判性思維能力方面得高分的學(xué)生要少得多?！钡@個(gè)結(jié)論只是基于臨畢業(yè)的學(xué)生得出的。該項(xiàng)目并沒(méi)有考察那些完成課程量不足75%的學(xué)生。點(diǎn)評(píng)：段援引實(shí)驗(yàn)組織者的原話總結(jié)實(shí)驗(yàn)發(fā)現(xiàn)，并指出實(shí)驗(yàn)的不足之處。句總結(jié)實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)論，it指代該實(shí)驗(yàn)，承接上文；three outcomes指段III 提到的三個(gè)核心模塊critical thinking, written communication, and quantitative literacy。句轉(zhuǎn)而指出該實(shí)驗(yàn)的不足，based only on， did not measure表明該實(shí)驗(yàn)的受試對(duì)象在年級(jí)選擇上不全面，因此實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果可能存在誤差。American universities, despite their global reputation for excellence in teaching, have only begun to demonstrate what they can produce in real-world learning. Knowledge-based degrees are still important. But given the pace of discoveries in many fields, employers are demanding advanced thinking skills from college grads.翻譯：雖然美國(guó)很多大學(xué)因教學(xué)質(zhì)量出色享有國(guó)際聲譽(yù)，但它們也才剛剛開(kāi)始示范它們能為學(xué)生進(jìn)入社會(huì)提供什么樣的教育。以知識(shí)為核心的學(xué)歷仍很重要。但考慮到很多領(lǐng)域出現(xiàn)新發(fā)現(xiàn)的速度，用人單位期待高校畢業(yè)生具備出色的思維能力。點(diǎn)評(píng)：段介紹美國(guó)高校培養(yǎng)模式與當(dāng)今社會(huì)就業(yè)市場(chǎng)對(duì)高校畢業(yè)生的需求脫節(jié)。句先肯定美國(guó)高校在教學(xué)質(zhì)量上享有良好的國(guó)際聲譽(yù)，但關(guān)于學(xué)生如何更好地裝備進(jìn)入社會(huì)的各項(xiàng)能力方面也才剛起步。only begun to一方面暗含責(zé)備之意，認(rèn)為美國(guó)高?？障硎⒆u(yù)卻沒(méi)有早早在這方面引領(lǐng)國(guó)際，但同時(shí)用demonstrate (an act of explaining and showing how to do something or how something works, “示范”) 暗含盡管剛起步，卻也是一種“示范”，表明美國(guó)高校教育水平起點(diǎn)高，起步稍晚些前景也會(huì)是光明的。句中knowledge-based degrees即對(duì)應(yīng)傳統(tǒng)的側(cè)重文化課的教育方式，still表明在引入新模式的同時(shí)也應(yīng)繼續(xù)重視文化課學(xué)習(xí)。句結(jié)合現(xiàn)在就業(yè)市場(chǎng)對(duì)畢業(yè)生的需求進(jìn)一步強(qiáng)調(diào)改革的必要性，advanced thinking skills是critical thinking skills的延伸，指除了句中的文化課程之外的進(jìn)一步的思維能力培養(yǎng)。Given意為“鑒于，考慮到”。If faculty can now work with college presidents, government leaders, and others to accurately measure the intellectual worth of a college degree, more people will seek higher education and come out better thinkers. 翻譯：如果現(xiàn)在全體教員能和大學(xué)校長(zhǎng)、政府領(lǐng)導(dǎo)以及其他相關(guān)人員通力合作，以精確衡量一張大學(xué)文憑的知識(shí)含金量，那么就會(huì)有更多的人期望接受高等教育，也才能培養(yǎng)出更多會(huì)思考的人。點(diǎn)評(píng)：段以虛擬語(yǔ)氣的形式提出了作者的建議。faculty 、presidents與第一段形成首尾呼應(yīng)，同時(shí)泛指高校的教育人員和行政人員，另將人員擴(kuò)大到政府領(lǐng)導(dǎo)和其他相關(guān)人員，others 指代廣泛且模糊，表達(dá)出作者認(rèn)為提高大學(xué)文憑含金量（the intellectual worth of a college degree）的目標(biāo)需各界人士一起努力。23.When is it worth giving up your data?Americans arent quite sure本文選自2016年1月24日華盛頓郵報(bào)中一篇名為“When is it worth giving up your data? Americans arent quite sure.”的文章。文章引用實(shí)例介紹了當(dāng)前一種流行的趨勢(shì)，即消費(fèi)者在購(gòu)買(mǎi)并使用商品的同時(shí)，也在無(wú)意中交出了個(gè)人信息，文中多次引用研究調(diào)查結(jié)果說(shuō)明人們對(duì)這種趨勢(shì)的態(tài)度，并援引研究人員的話分析相關(guān)態(tài)度的原因。原文IWould you trade information about when youre in your house - and in what rooms - for the promise of cheaper energy bills, even if that means youre sending this data to a distant tech company?Thats one of the hypotheticals laid out in a new report from Pew Research Center, which found that more than half of the 461 adults it surveyed couldnt stomach the idea. IIBut thermostats that collect data on you arent a hypothetical.In fact, theyre quickly becoming the standard: By 2017, market research firm Parks Associates estimates more than half of the thermostats sold in the United States will be “smart.” And one of the biggest players in the market is Nest, which is offered by Google parent-company Alphabet that makes much of its revenue by tracking our behavior and selling us targeted ads. IIISo why the disconnect between the rise of smart thermostats and Americans apparent distrust of the data that makes them work better?Part of the answer may be that consumers dont fully understand what theyre giving up when they pick up that shiny new device.Modern life is really a life o