星火考研高频词汇 MP3 (2009) 【原版配送】(全部上传完毕）

我的考元就要不够了[s:3]

谢谢了，继续努力!!!

谢谢。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。

谢谢啊，真是挺好的

[s:2] 谢谢了，继续努力

太感谢楼主了，谢谢。

音质不错
谢谢！！！

1994年英译汉试题
According to the new school of scientists, technology is an overlooked force in expanding the horizons of scientific knowledge. (71)Science moves forward, they say, not so much through theinsights of great men of genius as because of more ordinary things like improved techniques and tools. (72) “In short”, a leader of the new school contends, “the scientific revolution, as we call it, was largely the improvement and invention and use of a series of instruments that expanded the reach of science in innumerable directions.” (73) Over the years, tools and technology themselves as a source of fundamental innovation have largely been ignored by historians and philosophers of science. The modern school that hails technology argues that such masters as Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and inventors such as Edison attached great importance to, and derived great benefit from, craft information and technological devices of different kinds that were usable in scientific experiments. The centerpiece of the argument of a technology-yes, genius-no advocate was an analysis of Galileo\'s role at the start of the scientific revolution. The wisdom of the day was derived from Ptolemy, an astronomer of the second century, whose elaborate system of the sky put Earth at the center of all heavenly motions. (74)Galileo\'s greatest glory was that in 1609 he was the first person to turn the newly invented telescope on the heavens to prove that the planets revolve around the sun rather than around the Earth. But the real hero of the story, according to the new school of scientists, was the long evolution in the improvement of machinery for making eyeglasses.
Federal policy is necessarily involved in the technology vs. genius dispute. (75)Whether the Government should increase the financing of pure science at the expense of technology or vice versa often depends on the issue of which is seen as the driving force.

1995年英译汉试题

The standardized educational or psychological tests that are widely used to aid in selecting, classifying, assigning, or promoting students, employees, and military personnel have been the target of recent attacks in books, magazines, the daily press, and even in congress. (71) The target is wrong, for in attacking the tests, critics divert attention from the fault that lies with ill-informed or incompetent users. The tests themselves are merely tools, with characteristics that can be measured with reasonable precision under specified conditions. Whether the results will be valuable, meaningless, or even misleading depends partly upon the tool itself but largely upon the user.
All informed predictions of future performance are based upon some knowledge of relevant past performance: school grades research productive, sales records, or whatever is appropriate. (72) How well the predictions will be validated by later performance depends upon the amount, reliability, and appropriateness of the information used and on the skill and wisdom with which it is interpreted. Anyone who keeps careful score knows that the information available is always incomplete and that the predictions are always subject to error.
Standardized tests should be considered in thiscontext. They provide a quick, objective method of getting some kids of information about what a person learned, the skills he has developed, or the kinds of person he is. The information so obtained has, qualitatively, the same advantages and shortcomings as other kinds of information. (73) Whether to use tests, other kinds of information, or both in a particular situation depends, therefore, upon the evidence from experience concerning comparative validity and upon such factors as cost and availability.
(74)In general, the tests work most effectively when the qualities to be measured can be most precisely defined and least effectively when what is to be measured or predicted can not be well defined.Properly used, they provide a rapid means of getting comparable information about many people. Sometimes they identify students whose high potential has not been previously recognized, but there are many things they do not do. (75) For example, they do not compensate for gross social inequality, and thus do not tell how able an underprivileged youngster might have been had he grown up under more favorable circumstances.

The differences in relative growth of various areas of scientific research have several causes. (71)Some of these causes are completely reasonable results of social needs. Others are reasonable consequences of particular advances in science being to some extent self-accelerating. Some, however, are less reasonable processes of different growth in which preconceptions of the form scientific theory ought to take, by persons in authority, act to alter the growth pattern of different areas. This is a new problem probably not yet unavoidable; but it is a frightening trend. (72)This trend began during the Second World War, when several governments came to the conclusion that the specific demands that a government wants to make of its scientific establishment cannot generally be foreseen in detail. It can be predicted, however, that from time to time questions will arise which will require specific scientific answers. It is therefore generally valuable to treat the scientific establishment as a resource or machine to be kept in functional order. (73)This seems mostly effectively done by supporting a certain amount of research not related to immediate goals but of possible consequence in the future.
This kind of support, like all government support, requires decisions about the appropriate recipients of funds. Decisions based on utility as opposed to lack of utility are straightforward. But a decision among projects none of which has immediate utility is more difficult. The goal of the supporting agencies is the praisable one of supporting “good ” as opposed to “bad” science, but a valid determination is difficult to make. Generally, the idea of good science tends to become confused with the capacity of the field in question to generate an elegant theory. (74)However, the world is so made that elegant systems are in principle unable to deal with some of the world\'s more fascinating and delightful aspects. (75)New forms of thought as well as new subjects for thought must arise in the future as they have in the past, giving rise to new standards of elegance.