新东方：上海高口阅读热点文章预测

英语自学网

　　1. 2008年9月 Section2 第四篇
        　　入围原因：信息量大，适合练习速读。
        　　Questions 16-20
        　　A new golden age of cartography has suddenly dawned, everywhere. We can all be map-makers now, navigating across a landscape of ideas that the cartographers of the past could never have imagined. Maps were once the preserve of an elite, an expression of power, control and, latterly, of minute scientific measurement. Today map-making has been democratised by the internet, where digital technology is spawning an astonishing array of maps, reflecting an infinite variety of interests and concerns, some beautiful, some political and some extremely odd. If the Budget has made you feel gloomy, you can log on to a map that will tell you just how depressed you and the rest of the world are feeling. For more than two years, the makers of wefeelfine.org have harvested feelings from a wide variety of personal blogs and then projected these on to the globe. How happy are they in Happy Valley? How grim is Grimsby? You can find out.
        　　Where maps once described mountains, forests and rivers, now they depict the contours of human existence from quite different perspectives: maps showing the incidence of UFOs, speed cameras or the density of doctors in any part of the world. A remarkable new map reflects global telephone usage as it happens, starkly illustrating the technological gap between, say, New York and Nairobi. Almost any measurable human activity can be projected, using a computer "mash-up". A new online map called whoissick.org allows American hypochondriacs to track who is ill with what and where at any given moment. A hilarious disclaimer adds: "whoissick is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice." The new generation of amateur map-makers are doing for the traditional atlas what Wikipedia has already done to the encyclopaedia, adding layer upon layer of new information, some that is fascinating and useful, much that is pointless and misleading, and almost all from a distinctly personal perspective.
        　　The new digital geography marks a return to an earlier form of cartography, when maps were designed to reveal the world through a particular prism. The earliest maps each told a story framed by politics, culture and belief. Ancient Greeks painted maps depicting unknown lands and strange creatures beyond the known world. Early Christian maps placed Jerusalem at the middle of the world. British imperial maps showed the great advance of pink colonialism spreading outwards from our tiny islands at the centre.
        　　Maps were used to settle scores and score points, just as they are today. When Jesuit map-makers drew up a chart of the Moon's surface in 1651, craters named after heretical scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo were dumped in the Sea of Storms, while more acceptable thinkers were allowed to float in the Sea of Tranquillity. The 19th century heralded a more scientific approach to map-making; much of the artistry and symbolism was stripped away in an attempt to create a two-dimensional representation of three-dimensional reality. Maps became much more accurate, but less imaginative and culturally revealing.
        　　The boom in amateur mapping, by contrast, marks a return to the earlier way of imagining the world when maps were used to tell stories and impose ideas, to interpret the world and not simply to describe its physical character. New maps showing how to avoid surveillance cameras, or the routes taken by CIA planes carrying terrorist suspects on "extraordinary rendition", are political statements rather than geographical descriptions.
        　　The earliest maps were also philosophical guides. They showed what was important and what was peripheral and what might be imagined beyond the edges of the known. A stunning tapestry map of the Midlands made around the time of Shakespeare and recently rediscovered, depicts forests, churches and the houses of the most powerful families, yet not a single road. It does not purport to show a physical landscape, but a mental one. Maps have always tried to show where we are, literally or philosophically. The explosion of online mapping, however, offers something even broader: a set of maps that combine to express individual personality.
        　　Oscar Wilde wrote that "a map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail." If Utopia means knowing where you fit in your own world - knowing how many UFOs hover above you, how much graffiti has appeared overnight, how happy your next-door neighbour is and whether he is likely to have picked up anything contagious - then humanity may finally have a map showing how to get there.
            
            

enone

        　　2. 2008年9月Section2 第二篇
        　　入围原因：文章内容抽象，题目考得却很浅显，适合练习快速定位。
        　　Questions 6-10
        　　Perhaps we could have our children pledge allegiance to a national motto. So thick and fast and inchoate tumble the ideas about Britishness from the Government that the ridiculous no longer seems impossible. For the very debate about what it means to be a British citizen, long a particular passion of Gordon Brown, brutally illustrates the ever-decreasing circle that new Labour has become. The idea of a national motto has already attracted derision on a glorious scale -- and there's nothing more British than the refusal to be defined. Times readers chose as their national motto: No motto please, we're British.
        　　Undaunted, here comes the Government with another one: a review of citizenship, which suggests that schoolchildren be asked to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. It would be hard to think of something more profoundly undemocratic, less aligned to Mr Brown's supposed belief in meritocracy and enabling all children to achieve their full potential. Today you will hear the Chancellor profess the Government's continuing commitment to the abolition of child poverty, encapsulating a view of Britain in which the State tweaks the odds and the tax credit system to iron out inherited inequalities.
        　　You do not need to ask how this vision of Britain can sit easily alongside a proposal to ask kids to pledge allegiance to the Queen before leaving school: it cannot. The one looks up towards an equal society, everyone rewarded according to merit and not the lottery of birth; the other bends its knee in obeisance to inherited privilege and an undemocratic social and political system. In Mr Brown's view of the world, as I thought I understood it, an oath of allegiance from children to the Queen ought to be anathema, grotesque, off the scale, not even worth considering.
        　　Why, then, could No 10 not dismiss it out of hand yesterday? Asked repeatedly at the morning briefing with journalists whether the Prime Minister supported the proposal, his spokesman hedged his bets. Mr Brown welcomed the publication of the report; he thinks the themes are important; he hopes it will launch a debate; he is very interested in the theme of Britishness. []But no view as to the suitability of the oath. It is baffling in the extreme. Does this Prime Minister believe in nothing, then? A number of things need to be unpicked here. First, to give him due credit, the report from the former Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith contains much more than the oath of allegiance. That is but "a possibility that's raised". The oath forms a tiny part of a detailed report about what British citizenship means, what it ought to mean and how to strengthen it.
        　　It is a serious debate that Mr Brown is keen to foster about changing the categories of British citizenship, and defining what they mean. But it is in him that the central problem resides: the Prime Minister himself is uncertain what Britishness is, while insisting we should all be wedded to the concept. No wonder there is a problem over what a motto, or an oath of allegiance, should contain. Britain is a set of laws and ancient institutions - monarchy, Parliament, statutes, arguably today EU law as well. An oath of allegiance naturally tends towards these.
        　　It wasn't supposed to be like this. In its younger and bolder days, new Labour used to argue that the traditional version of Britain is outdated. When Labour leaders began debating Britishness in the 1990s, they argued that the institutions in which a sense of Britain is now vested, or should be vested, are those such as the NHS or even the BBC, allied with values of civic participation, all embodying notions of fairness, equality and modernity absent in the traditional institutions. Gordon Brown himself wrote at length about Britishness in The Times in January 2000: "The strong British sense of fair play and duty, together embodied in the ideal of a vibrant civic society, is best expressed today in a uniquely British institution -- the institution that for the British people best reflects their Britishness -- our National Health Service."
        　　An oath of allegiance to the NHS? Ah, those were the days. They really thought they could do it; change the very notion of what it meant to be British. Today, ten years on, they hesitatingly propose an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Could there be a more perfect illustration of the vanquished hopes and aspirations of new Labour? Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair. Ah, but I see there is to be a national day as well, "introduced to coincide with the Olympics and Diamond Jubilee - which would provide an annual focus for our national narrative". A narrative, a national day, glorifying the monarchy and sport? Yuck. I think I might settle for a national motto after all.
            
            

ensix

        　　3. 2009年3月Section 2 第一篇
        　　入围原因：难度适中，适合模拟实战感受。
        　　"They treat us like mules," the guy installing my washer te1ls me, his eyes narrowing as he wipes his hands. I had just complimented him and his partner on the speed and assurance of their work. He explains that it's rare that customers speak to him this way. I know what he's talking about. My mother was a waitress all her life, in coffee shops and fast-paced chain restaurants. It was hard work, but she liked it, liked "being among the public," as she would say. But that work had its sting, too— the customer who would treat her like a servant or, her biggest complaint, like she was not that bright.
        　　There's a lesson here for this political season: the subtle and not-so-subtle insults that blue-collar and service workers endure as part of their working lives. And those insults often have to do with intelligence.
        　　We like to think of the United States as a classless society. The belief in economic mobility is central to the American Dream, and we pride ourselves on our spirit of egalitarianism. But we also have a troubling streak of aristocratic bias in our national temperament, and one way it manifests itself is in the assumptions we mark about people who work with their hands. Working people sense this bias and react to it when they vote. The common political wisdom is that hot-button social issues have driven blue-collar voters rightward. But there are other cultural dynamics at play as well. And Democrats can be as oblivious to these dynamics as Repub1icans——though the Grand Old Party did appea1 to them in St. Paul.
        　　Let's go back to those two men installing my washer and dryer. They do a lot of heavy lifting quickly——mine was the first of l5 deliveries——and efficiently to avoid injury. Between them there is ongoing communication, verbal and nonverbal, to coordinate the lift, negotiate the tight fit, move in rhythm with each other. And al1 the while, they are weighing options, making decisions and so1ving problems——as when my new dryer didn't match up with the gas outlet.
        　　Think about what a good waitress has to do in the busy restaurant: remember orders and monitor them, attend to a dynamic, quickly changing environment, prioritize tasks and manage the flow of work, make decisions on the fly. There's the carpenter using a number of mathematica1 concepts—symmetry proportion, congruence, the properties of angles——and visualizing these concepts while building a cabinet, a flight of stairs, or a pitched roof
        　　The hairstylist's practice is a mix of technique, knowledge about the biology of hair, aesthetic judgment, and communication skill. The mechanic, electrician, and plumber are troubleshooters and problem solvers. Even the routinized factory floor cal1s for working smarts. When has any of this made its way into our political speeches? From either party. Even on Labor Day.
        　　Last week. the GOP masterfully invoked some old cultural suspicions: country folk versus city and east-coast versus heartland education. But these are symbolic populist gestures, not the stuff of true engagement. Judgments about intelligence carry great weigh in our society, and we have a tendency to make sweeping assessments of people's intelligence based on the kind of work they do.
        　　Political tributes to labor over the next two months will render the muscled arm, sleeve rolled tight against biceps. But few will also celebrate the thought bright behind the eye, or offer an image that links hand and brain. It would be fitting in a country with an egalitarian vision of itself to have a truer, richer sense of all that is involved in the wide range of work that surrounds and sustains us.
        　　Those politicians who can communicate that sense will tap a deep reserve of neglected feeling. And those who can honor and use work in explaining and personalizing their policies will find a welcome reception.
            
            

enone

        　　4. 2009年3月Section2 第四篇
        　　入围原因：英国+隐私话题，有助于配合上课讲过的课文进一步整理背景知识。
        　　Britain, somewhat proudly,has been crowned the most watched society in the world. The country boasts 4.2million security cameras (onefor every l4 people)， a number expected to double in the next decade.A typical Londoner makes an estimated 300 closed-circuit television (CCTV) appearances a day, according to the Britishnonprofit surveillance Studies Network, an average easily met in the short walkbetween Trafalgar Square and the Houses of Parliament. Public opinion on thisstate of affairs is generally positive, according to recent polls. And howuseful is CCTV in busting bad guys? Not much, according to Scotland Yard. Interms of cost benefit, the enormous expenditure has done very little inactually preventing and solving crime.
        　　Right under Big Brother'snose, a new class of guerrilla artists and hackers are commandeering theboring, grainy images of vacant parking lots and empty corridors for their ownpurposes. For about $80 at any electronics supply store and some technicalknow-how, it is possible to tap into London's CCTV hotspots with a simplewireless receiver (soldwith any home-security camera) and a battery to power it. Dubbed "videosniffing," the pastime evolved out of the days before broadband becamewidely availab1e, when “war-chalkers”scouted the city for unsecured Wi-Finetworks and marked them with chalk using special symbols. Sniffing is catchingon in other parts of Europe, spread by a small but globally connected communityof practitioners." It's actual1y a really relaxing thing to do on a Sunday"says Joao Wilbert, a master's student in interactive media, who s1owly pacesthe streets in London like a treasure hunter, carefully watching a tinyhandheld monitor for something to flicker onto the screen.
        　　The excursions pick upobscure, random shots from the upper comers of restaurants and hotel lobbies,or of a young couple shopping in a housewares department nearby. Eerily, babycribs are the most common images. Wireless child monitors work on the samefrequency as other surveillance systems, and are almost never encrypted orsecured.
        　　Given that sniffing isillegal, some artists have found another way to obtain security footage: theyask for it, in a letter along with a check for 10. In making her film"Faceless," Australian-born artist Manu Luksch made use of alittle-known law, included within Britain's Date Protection Act, requiring CCTVoperators to release a copy of their footage upon the request of anyonecaptured on their cameras. "Within the maximum period of 40 days Ireceived some recordings in my mail," says Luksch. "And I though,Wow, that works well. Why not make a feature length, science-fiction lovestory?" After four years of performing, staging large dance ensembles inpublic atriums and submitting the proper paperwork, Luksch produced a haunting,beautifully choreographed film and social commentary in which the operatorshave blocked out each and every performer's face, in compliance with Britain'sprivacy laws.
        　　"The Duelists,"one of the more well known CCTV movies, was shot by filmmaker David Valentineentirely with the security cameras in a mall in Manchester. He was able tocajole his way into the control booth for the project, but he is also creditedwith having advanced video sniffing to an art form and social tool. He'scollaborated with MediaShed, an organization based in Southend-on-Sea justoutside London that works with homeless youth, using sniffing as a way to gaintheir interest and re-engage them with society.
        　　In some cases videosniffing has morphed into a form of hacking, in which the sniffer does morethan just watch. Using a transmitter strong enough to override the frequencythat most cameras use, sniffers can hijack wireless networks and broadcastdifferent images back to the security desk. Most sniffers, hijackers and artistsusing CCTV are critical of the present level of surveillance, but they're alsointerested in establishing a dialogue about what is typically a secretivearrangement. The ability to tap into wireless surveillance systems and takethem over points out a flaw in the elaborate security apparatus that hasevolved around us.
        　　As anthropologists tell us,the act of observation changes what's being observed. Cameras 'reorder theenvironment," says Graham Harwood, artistic director of the group Mongrel,which specializes in digital media. That's especially true of saturated London.Like "flash mobs" and "wifipicning," both large,spontaneous gatherings of people centered around communications technology,sniffing and hijacking could become the next high-tech social phenomenon. Ofcourse, it will likely disappear quickly once the survei1lance industry catcheson to the shenanigans and beefs up its security. But the cameras will remain.
            
            

enfour

        　　5. 2007年9月Section2 第一篇
        　　入围原因：热点话题结合常规话题，难度适中，有助于练习段落结构分析。
        　　Advances in surveillancetechnology could seriously damage individual privacy unless drastic measuresare taken to protect personal data, scientists have said. Richard Thomas, theInformation Commissioner, gave warning last year that Britain was"sleepwalking" into a surveillance society. Yesterday the country'sleading engineers developed the theme, fleshing out a dystopian vision that noteven George Orwell could have predicted.
        　　They said that travelpasses, supermarket loyalty cards and mobile phones could be used to trackindividuals' every move. They also predicted that CCTV (close-circuittelevision) footage could become available for public consumption and thatterrorists could hijack the biometric chips in passports and rig them up as atrigger for explosives.
        　　The report by the RoyalAcademy of Engineering, Dilemmas of Privacy and Surveillance—Challenges ofTechnological Change, argues that the scientists developing surveillancetechnology should also think about measures to protect privacy. "Just assecurity features have been incorporated into car design, privacy-protectingfeatures should be incorporated into the design of products and services thatrely on divulging personal information," the report says.
        　　"There is a choicebetween a Big Brother world where individual privacy is almost extinct and aworld where the data are kept by individual organizations or services and keptsecret and secure." The report says that shoppers should be allowed to buygoods and services without revealing their identities to the companies thatprovide them. It argues that travel and supermarket loyalty cards and mobilephones are mines of personal information that should be closely scrutinized tomake sure that data is not abused.
        　　Professor Nigel Gilbert,chairman of the report group, said: "In most cases, supermarket loyaltycards will have your name on. Why? What is needed in a loyalty card is for thesupermarket to know what has been bought so you can get your discounts.
        　　"Does it need toidentify you? No, it just needs authentication that you've bought the goods. Itis the same for Oyster cards on the Tube, some of which you have to registerfor. These are all apparently small things but people are being required togive away more identification information than is required."
        　　Ian Forbes, the report'scoauthor, said that because footage from CCTV cameras could be digitized andpotentially stored for ever, that necessitated greater scrutiny of thecontrolling networks. Britain has about five million CCTV cameras, one forevery 12 people.
        　　The report says: "Givethis potential, it cannot be guaranteed that surveillance images will remainprivate, or will not be altered, misused or manipulated." The report alsogives warning that biometric passports and identity cards would give freshopportunities to fraudsters and terrorists to read remotely the data chips thatthey contain. It says that it could be possible to rig a bomb to go off in thepresence of a certain person or someone of a particular nationality.
        　　The report proposes thatthe Information Commissioner should be given extended powers, and that stifferpenalties, including prison sentences, should be introduced for those whomisuse personal data. The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee is expected toannounce an inquiry into the growing use of surveillance.
        　　6. 2009年9 月section5 第一篇
        　　入围原因：题型全面，难度适中，有益于练习改写技巧。请同学们多多磨练换用多种举行改写原文。
        　　Disparaging comments by adults about a children’s presenter have led to an angry backlash in support of Cerrie Burnell, the 29-year-old CBeebies host whowas born missing the lower section of her right arm. One man said that he wouldstop his daughter from watching the BBC children’s channel because Burnellwould give his child nightmares.
        　　Parents even called thebroadcaster to complain after Burnell, with Alex Winters, took over thechannel’s popular Do and Discover slot and The Bedtime Hour programme last month, to complain about her disability. And some of the vitrioliccomments on the “Grown Up” section of the channel’s website were so nasty thatthey had to be removed.
        　　“Is it just me, or doesanyone else think the new woman presenter on CBeebies may scare the kidsbecause of her disability?” wrote one adult on the CBeebies website. Other adults claimed that theirchildren were asking difficult questions as a result. “I didn’t want to let mychildren watch the filler bits on The Bedtime Hour last night because I know itwould have played on my eldest daughter’s mind and possibly caused sleepproblems,” said one message. The BBC received nine other complaints by phone.
        　　While charities reactedangrily to the criticism of the children’s presenter, calling the commentsdisturbing, other parents and carers labeled the remarks as disgraceful, writing in support of Burnell and setting up a “fight disability prejudice”page on the social networking site Facebook.
        　　“I think that it is greatthat Cerrie is on CBeebies. She is an inspiration to children and we shouldnot underestimate their ability to understand and accept that all of us have differences-some visible and some not,” wrote “Surfergirlboosmum”. Other websites were flooded with equally supportive comments. “I feel we should all post countercomplaints to the BBC and I’m sure they will receive more complaints about the fact they have even considered accepting these complaints,” wrote Scott Tostevin on Facebook. “It’s a disgrace that people still have suchnegative views against people who are ‘different’”, he added.
        　　Burnell, who described herfirst television presenting role as a “dream job”, has also appeared inEastEnders and Holby City and has been feted for performances in the theatrewhile also worked as a teaching assistant at a special needs school in London.She also has a four-year-old child. “I think the negative comments from thosefew parents are indicative of a wider problem of disabled representation in the media as a whole, which is why it’s so important for there to be more disabled role models in every area of the media,” shesaid in response yesterday.
        　　“The support that I’vereceived ... has been truly heartening. It’s brilliant that parents are able touse me as a way of talking about disability with their children and forchildren who are similarly disabled to see what really is possible in life and for their worlds to be represented in such a positive, high profile manner.”
        　　Charities said that muchstill needed to be done to change perceptions in society. “In some way it is a prettysad commentary on the way society is now and that both parents and children seefew examples of disabled people. The sooner children are exposed to disability in mainstream education the better,” said Mark Shrimpton at Radar, the UK’s largest disability campaigning organisation. “She is a role model for otherdisabled people.”
        　　Rosemary Bolinger, a trustee at Scope, a charity for people with cerebral palsy, said: “It is disturbing that some parents have reacted in this way ... Unfortunately disabled people are generally invisible in themedia and wider society.”
        　　1.Who is Cerrie Burnell?Give a brief introduction of Cerrie Burnell.
        　　2.What are the responsesfrom parents and carers towards Cerrie Burnell? What is the reaction fromcharities to such criticism?
        　　3.What is Cerrie Burnell’sown view about her job as a television presenter?
            
            

enone

        　　7. 2009年9月Section5 第三篇
        　　入围原因：考点集中，大段内容不在考试范围内，有助于练习根据题干进行定位+扫读法。
        　　“Isn’t it funny/How they never make any money/When everyone in the racket/Cleans up such a packet.” That Basil Boothroyd poem was originally written about the movies, but it could just as well apply to banking. In its last three years, Bear Stearns paid $11.3 billion in employee compensation and benefits. According to its 2007 annual report, Lehman Brothers shelled out $21.6 billion in the three years before, while Merrill Lynch paid staff over $45 billion during the three years to 2007.
        　　And what have shareholders got from all this? Lehman’s got nothing (the company went bust). Investors in Bear Stearns received around $1.4 billion of JPMorgan Chase Stock, now worth just half that after the fall in the acquirer’s share price. Merrill Lynch’s shareholders got shares in Bank of America (BofA) which are now worth just $9.6 billion, less than a fifth of the original offer value. Meanwhile, Citigroup paid $34.4 billion to its employees in 2007 and is now valued by the stock market at just $18.1 billion.
        　　All this has reinforced the idea that banking is simply a gravy train for employees. The row over the early payment of bonuses at Merrill Lynch shows yet again that insiders’ interests come first (those to BofA staff, however, are likely to shrivel).
        　　The case against banks goes something like this. Over the past 25 years, the cost of finance has been low and asset prices have generally been rising. That has encouraged banks to use more leverage in order to earn high returns on equity. The process of lending money against the security of assets, or trading assets with the banks’ capital, helped to push asset prices even higher. A sizeable proportion of the profits that resulted from all this activity was then handed out to employees in the form of wages and bonuses.
        　　But when asset prices started to fall, the whole system unraveled. Banks were forced to cut the amounts that they had borrowed, putting further downward pressure on prices. The “shadow banking system”, which relied on bank finance, started to default. The result was losses that outweighed the profits built up in the good years; Merrill Lynch lost $15.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008 alone, compared with the $12.6 billion of post tax profits it earned in 2005 and 2006 combined.
        　　In effect, executives and employees were given a call option on the markets by the banking system. They took most of the profits when the market was booming and shareholders bore the bulk of the losses during the bust. What about the efforts made to align the incentivesof employees, executives and shareholders’? Employees were often paid in restricted stock and thus suffered heavily whentheir firms collapsed; Dick Fuld, the boss of Lehman Brothers, was a prominent example. Why then were bankers not more cautious, given the risks to their own wealth?
        　　There were two main reasons. First, their base packages (pay and cash bonuses) were sufficiently large to make them feel financially secure. That gave bankers a licence to gamble in the hope of earning the humungous payouts that would take them into the ranks of the ?ber-wealthy. The second reason was that the bankers simply did not recognize the risks they were taking. Like most commentators (including central bankers), they thought that the economic outlook was stable and that the financial system was doing a good job of spreading risk.
        　　Henceforth two things need to be done. The first is that the trigger for incentives (as well as the payments themselves) need to be longer-term in nature. Bonuses could still be paid annually but based on the average performance over several years; if bankers are rewarded for increasing the size of the loan book, their pay off should be delayed until the borrower has established a sound payment record. The effect would be to claw back profits earned by excessive risk-taking. The second is that the banks’ capital has to be properly allocated. If traders are given licence to use leverage to buy into rising asset markets, then the trading division should be charged a cost of capital high, enough to reflect the risks involved.
        　　Impossible, the banks might say: our star employees will never tolerate such restrictions. But if there is ever going to be a time to reorganize the incentive structure now must be it. A threat to quit will be pretty hollow, given the state of investment banking. And few traders will have the clout to set up their own hedge funds in today’s market conditions. In any case, the greediest employees may be the ones most likely to usher in the next banking crisis. Better to wave them goodbye and wish good luck to their next employer.
        　　8.What does the author mean by saying that “that banking is simply a gravy train for employees” (para. 3) ?
        　　9.What does the author suggest to solve the major problem of current banking system?
        　　10. Comment on the statement “In any case, the greediest employees may be the ones most likely to usher in the next banking crisis” (para. 9)?
            
            

ensix

        　　8. 2008年9月Section5 第二篇
        　　入围原因：同义词众多，表达重复，适合练习换词改写技巧。
        　　What's behind Fox's unrivaled string of money-making movies? A relentless focus on costs. If there were an Oscar for most consistently profitable Hollywood studio, it probably would go to 20th Century Fox (NWS). Hollywood is a hit-driven business, and most studios bounce from box-office hit to dud with depressing regularity. But for the past seven years, Fox has scored with both blockbusters (Alvin and the Chipmunks) and indie hits (Juno) that have generated the kind of double-digit return on investment you might expect from a business making widgets, not films. Tom Pollock, a former Universal Pictures chairman who produces movies for Fox and other studios, says: "Fox is simply the best-run studio in town."
        　　You were expecting anything less from Rupert Murdoch's guys? At Fox, the mantra is "to be creatively driven but fiscally astute," says James N. Gianopulos, who co-chairs the studio with Thomas Rothman of Fox Filmed Entertainment (NWS). Translation: to be almost pathologically obsessed with costs. Not that the co-chairs run from risk. They outbid most of Hollywood in 2004 for the script to the apocalyptic The Day After Tomorrow, but made it for $100 million, relatively cheap for a special-effects picture. It grossed more than half a billion dollars worldwide.
        　　Double-digit profits are rare in Hollywood. Yet for the past six years, Fox has delivered 12% to 18% operating margins. Halfway through its fiscal year, it earned operating income of $765 million on nearly $3.6 billion in revenues-a 21.5% operating margin. And that doesn't include Horton Hears a Who!, which grossed a hefty $45 million on its Mar. 14 opening weekend and was made for just over $85 million, nearly half what an animated Pixar Animation Studios (PIXR) film costs.
        　　"No one in Hollywood negotiates tougher than these guys," says producer John Davis, who made I, Robot and Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties for Fox. The hardballing starts with development, which Davis says typically costs Fox 10% to 15% less than usual because it holds the line on costly rewrites. On top of that, Fox rarely gives anyone but the biggies-Steven Spielberg, say-a piece of the profits. It also sets tough budgets and sticks with them. For his Lord of the Rings-esque Eragon, Davis had a $100 million budget, which forced him to cut some special effects and limit stars such as John Malkovich to cameos. It earned just $75 million domestically but did well globally.
        　　Special effects often eat up an action film's budget. Not at Fox. The studio learned its lesson 10 years ago with Titanic, which cost Fox and Paramount Pictures (VIA) a then-unthinkable $200 million to make. After Titanic, Fox hired an in-house effects czar, whose main job is riding herd on special effects houses, often playing them against each other to get the best price. "They beat you over the head," says X-Men producer Avi Arad. "If it costs $30 million, they'll ask why it can't cost $20 million." To keep downtime to a minimum, Arad used several shops on Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer.
        　　Fox's biggest hits are its smallest films. Peter Rice runs the studio's independent unit, Fox Searchlight Pictures (NWS), which is in the business of finding tiny films, like Little Miss Sunshine, that were made on a shoestring. Rice's limit: $15 million. His latest triumph: Juno. It cost $7.5 million to produce and pulled in $135 million-plus in the U.S. alone.
        　　Which brings us to marketing, an expense that has been known to account for one-third of a film's overall budget. While executives say they pay full freight for ads on Fox's far-flung global properties, their stars pop up all over. Samuel L. Jackson, who starred in the flick Jumper, walked the carpet at the Super Bowl on the Fox Network. And wasn't that Jim Carrey, who provided Horton's voice, recently grinning insanely in the audience of Fox's megahit American Idol?
        　　Fox has stumbled before. Its 2005 picture Kingdom of Heaven bombed in the U.S. and cost a very unFoxlike $130 million to make. But even then, Fox turned things around. It had loaded the film with international stars, including Orlando Bloom, so it made enough outside the U.S. to break even.
        　　7. What is a "hit-driven business"? Explain briefly the sentence "most studios bounce from box-office hit to dud with depressing regularity." (para.1)
        　　8. Explain Gianopulos' comment what "At fox, the mantra is 'to be creatively driven but fiscally astute'". (para.2)
        　　9. What are the hardballing measures in Fox's control of its costs in making films?
        　　10. Cite examples to illustrate the statement "Fox biggest hits are its smallest films." (Para.6)
            
            

entwo

        　　9. 2008年9月Section5 第一篇
        　　入围原因：环保话题，近年来必考话题。可用来练习科技类文章的改写，同学们请注意改写时保留抽象概念。找准定位改动句型即可。
        　　Joe Harberg became an energy-efficiency guru because he didn't know the first thing about energy efficiency. In 2003 he was constructing a new home in Dallas and wanted to work with his builder to make the place as environmentally friendly as possible. But neither Harberg nor his designer had any training in how to turn an ordinary house green, and they found few resources to help them. "It was so frustrating," says Harberg, 46, a Dallas-based entrepreneur.
        　　Relying principally on the Internet, Harberg--who previously had worked as a marketing expert and real estate developer--did manage to build an energy-efficient home. He boasts that his electricity bills are regularly 50% less than those of similar homes in his neighborhood, and the entrepreneur in him saw an opportunity. Lots of people worry about global warming, not to mention the soaring costs of powering a home, but they don't know what to do about it. Working with his brother-in-law Josh Stern, Harberg helped launch what would become Current Energy, in 2005, to provide the needed expertise. "We aspire to be the ones who put it all together for you," Harberg says.
        　　Today Current Energy operates what is probably the first dedicated energy-efficiency retail store in the U.S., a hip space in Dallas' tony Highland Park where shoppers can buy ultraefficient air conditioners, tankless water heaters and even electric votive candles. But while the store itself is green cool--reminiscent of the Apple retail shops that Harberg helped roll out in his previous career--the real value in Current Energy isn't in its gadgets but in the services it offers. "It's an art to figure out how to save money at home," Harberg says. "We do the work."
        　　Homeowners who come to Current Energy can order an energy audit--a socket-to-faucet analysis of how to eliminate energy and water waste. After receiving the report, customers can follow as many of the recommendations as they wish, with Current Energy employees involved in the installation work--down to changing the lightbulbs. Joseph VanBlargan, a writer, secured an assessment for his Dallas home and estimates that the upgrades save him about 30% on his monthly energy bill. "I could have done it on my own, but there would have been bits and parts I would have missed," he says. Greenies who live outside Dallas will soon be able to get an energy assessment from currentenergy.com and the company will work with licensed auditors in your town to carry out the improvements.
        　　What Current Energy does isn't as easy as it looks. Maximizing the efficiency in your home means more than just chucking your incandescent lightbulbs. You might improve your attic insulation to prevent the loss of heat in the winter, but go overboard, and you could end up choking on indoor air pollution. Just as a house is more than four walls and a door, energy efficiency should be holistic, with insulation, appliances, lighting and clean electricity all working together.
        　　That's a message the tireless Harberg--who could probably power Texas Stadium if you plugged him into the grid--spreads with zeal. He hosts a weekly radio call-in show and was recently on the TV show Good Morning Texas touting the benefits of an indoor air-quality monitor. "You're saving people money and saving the earth at the same time," he says excitedly. As business plans go, that's an awfully good one.
            
            

enfive

        　　10. 2007年9月Section5 第一篇
        　　入围原因：教育话题，近几年较为罕见，但不可轻视。
        　　On Apr. 27, the Dean of Duke's business school had the unfortunate task of announcing that nearly 10% of the Class of 2008 had been caught cheating on a take-home final exam. The scandal, which has cast yet another pall over the leafy, Gothic campus, is already going down as the biggest episode of alleged student deception in the business school's history.
        　　Almost immediately, the questions started swirling. The accused MBAs were, on average, 29 years old. They were the cut-and-paste generation, the champions of Linux. Before going to the business school, they worked in corporations for an average of six years. They did so at a time when their bosses were trumpeting the brave new world of open source, where one's ability to aggregate (or rip off) other people's intellectual property was touted as a crucial competitive advantage.
        　　It's easy to imagine the explanations these MBAs, who are mulling an appeal, might come up with. Teaming up on a take-home exam: That's not academic fraud, it's postmodern learning, wiki style. Text-messaging exam answers or downloading essays onto iPods: That's simply a wise use of technology.
        　　One can understand the confusion. This is a generation that came of age nabbing music off Napster and watching bootlegged Hollywood blockbusters in their dorm rooms. "What do you mean?" you can almost hear them saying. "We're not supposed to share?"
        　　That's not to say that university administrators should ignore unethical behavior, if it in fact occurred. But in this wired world, maybe the very notion of what constitutes cheating has to be reevaluated. The scandal at Duke points to how much the world has changed, and how academia and corporations are confused about it all, sending split messages.
        　　We're told it's all about teamwork and shared information. But then we're graded and ranked as individuals. We assess everybody as single entities. But then we plop them into an interdependent world and tell them their success hinges on creative collaboration.
        　　The new culture of shared information is vastly different from the old, where hoarding information was power. But professors—and bosses, for that matter—need to be able to test individual ability. For all the talk about workforce teamwork, there are plenty of times when a person is on his or her own, arguing a case, preparing a profit and loss statement, or writing a research report.
        　　Still, many believe that a rethinking of the assessment process is in store. The Stanford University Design School, for example, is so collaborative that "it would be impossible to cheat," says D-school professor Robert I. Sutton. "If you found somebody to help you write an exam, in our view that's a sign of an inventive person who gets stuff done. If you found someone to do work for free who was committed to open source, we'd say, 'Wow, that was smart.' One group of students got the police to help them with a school project to build a roundabout where there were a lot of bike accidents. Is that cheating?"
        　　That's food for thought at a time when learning is becoming more and more of a social process embedded in a larger network. This is in no way a pass on those who consciously break the rules. With countries aping American business practices, a backlash against an ethically rudderless culture can't happen soon enough. But the saga at Duke raises an interesting question: In the age of Twitter, a social network that keeps users in constant streaming contact with one another, what is cheating?
        　　1. What is the author's attitude towards the student deception in Duke's business school?
        　　2. According to the author, what are the "split messages" sent by the academia and corporations (para. 5)?
        　　3. Why does the author cite the example of Stanford University Design School?
　　
        　　全国新东方英语课程搜索

124_121126140633.jpg

       

230_131128093651yXKRpF16u3aYeYN9.png