考研英语真题出处全文翻译(持续更新中)

!感-杠-问?

说明：
1、本部分目的是鼓励各位自主翻译全文，而不是参考各种权威教材的“翻译”。
2、顺序按时间由近到远来翻译。
3、我会尽量找到每篇考研语篇的出处。并分析考研语篇与原版之间的差别。
4、如果能找到出处的语篇，我只翻译原版文章，考研语篇不再翻译。
5、每篇文章，我都会对一些较难理解的熟词，或者生词进行英英注释。
6、本人不是专业人士，译文肯定有问题，望交流，望指正。
7、每篇文章，我会给出我认为作文中可以使用的，比较好的，比较地道的结构。推荐各位背诵记忆，并自己造句练习。
8、由于我现在还是大三，白天还有课要上。并且目前主要时间花在另一个帖子“考研英语词汇解析及运用”上（我要尽量在暑假前把所有词汇搞定），因此这个帖子的更新会比较慢。望见谅。

!感-杠-问?

2012 TEXT 1

原版地址：http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2061234,00.html，全文如下：

Herd Mentality

ByANNIE MURPHY PAUL | Saturday, Apr. 09, 2011

Comeon — everybody's doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and halfgoad, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good — drinking, drugs,casual sex. But in her new book, Join theClub, Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positiveforce through what she calls the social cure, in which organizations andofficials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve theirlives and possibly the world.

Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize and aMacArthur "genius" grant, offers a host of examples of the socialcure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program calledRage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, anHIV-prevention initiative known as loveLife recruits young people to promotesafe sex among their peers. And in Illinois, "table groups" — smallgatherings of believers who meet at a weekly potluck — are arranged by theWillow Creek megachurch as a way of deepening its members' religious devotion.

The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is aperceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many public-healthcampaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits,and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology. "Dareto be different, please don't smoke!" implores one billboard campaignaimed at reducing smoking among teenagers — teenagers,who crave nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly thatpublic-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled atapplying peer pressure.

But on the general effectiveness of the social cure,Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join theClub is filled with too much extraneous detail and not enough explorationof the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so potent. Themost glaring flaw of the social cure as it's presented here is that it doesn'twork very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze foundered once statefunding was cut. Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes insexual behavior is limited and mixed. And the Willow Creek church'stable-groups experiment was abandoned after two years.

There's no doubt that our peer groups exert enormousinfluence on our behavior. An emerging body of research (mentioned briefly byRosenberg) shows that positive health habits — as well as negative ones —spread through networks of friends via a phenomenon that epidemiologists callsocial contagion. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciouslyemulate the behavior we see every day.

Far less certain, however, is how successfullyexperts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activitiesin virtuous directions. It's like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakersin the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tacticnever really works. And that's the problem with a social cure engineered fromthe outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our ownfriends.

This article originally appeared in the April 4, 2011 issue ofTIME.

!感-杠-问?

2012 TEXT 1
原版地址：http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2061234,00.html，全文如下：
Herd Mentality
By ANNIE MURPHY PAUL | Saturday, Apr. 09, 2011

Come on — everybody's doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half goad, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good — drinking, drugs, casual sex. But in her new book, Join the Club, Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure, in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the world.

Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize and a MacArthur "genius" grant, offers a host of examples of the social cure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as loveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers. And in Illinois, "table groups" — small gatherings of believers who meet at a weekly potluck — are arranged by the Willow Creek megachurch as a way of deepening its members' religious devotion.

The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many public-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology. "Dare to be different, please don't smoke!" implores one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers — teenagers, who crave nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure.

But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much extraneous detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so potent. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as it's presented here is that it doesn't work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze foundered once state funding was cut. Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes in sexual behavior is limited and mixed. And the Willow Creek church's table-groups experiment was abandoned after two years.

There's no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research (mentioned briefly by Rosenberg) shows that positive health habits — as well as negative ones — spread through networks of friends via a phenomenon that epidemiologists call social contagion. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously emulate the behavior we see every day.

Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It's like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And that's the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.

This article originally appeared in the April 4, 2011 issue of TIME.

!感-杠-问?

翻译原版文章如下（译文版权由我所有，望交流，望指教）：
Herd Mentality
大众心理
By ANNIE MURPHY PAUL | Saturday, Apr. 09, 2011
Come on — everybody's doing it. That whispered message, half invitation and half goad, is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good — drinking, drugs, casual sex. But in her new book, Join the Club, Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure, in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the world.

“加入我们，不做非主流。”当听到“同龄压力”时，我们很可能就会想到这句密语——可以说是一种邀请，也可以说是一种威胁。常常这终究摆脱不了那些不良嗜好（酗酒、吸毒、乱性等）。然而，蒂娜·罗森堡（Tina Rosenberg）最近出版了一本新书《别怕CLUB》（Join the Club）。她在书中表示，同龄压力也可能具有正面的作用。她将这种过程称作群体自愈。在同龄压力的影响下，群体行为可以帮助群体中的成员优化生活——甚至可以说是世界的未来。

Rosenberg, the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize and a MacArthur "genius" grant, offers a host of examples of the social cure in action: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigarettes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as loveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers. And in Illinois, "table groups" — small gatherings of believers who meet at a weekly potluck — are arranged by the Willow Creek megachurch as a way of deepening its members' religious devotion.

如今，罗森堡已是普利兹奖（Pulitzer Prize）和麦克阿瑟奖（MacArthur，又称Genius Grant）的得主。她试图给出一系列群体自愈的实例。比如在南卡罗来纳州，就有一个ZF资助的禁烟项目“对烟气缭绕说不”（Rage Against the Haze），他们就计划利用群体行为来改变人们对于香烟的好感。又比如在南非，艾滋预防项目“珍爱生命”（LoveLife）雇用了一些青年在同龄人间普及健康性行为。而位于伊利诺斯州的柳溪大教堂（Willow Creek）则利用“桌友”（指每周聚餐的教友），来深化他们的宗教信仰。

The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many public-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize peer pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology. "Dare to be different, please don't smoke!" implores one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers — teenagers, who crave nothing more thanfitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought totake a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure.

罗森堡是个视角敏锐的观察家，她所提出的这个观点也似乎很有市场。对于目前各种针对公共卫生的政治运动，她批评道：他们根本就没有利用同龄压力来倡导健康的生活习惯，相反在他们的言论中，违反心理学常识的例子比比皆是。她的这些批驳显然言之在理。有个平面广告竟然用“敢彰显个性吗！那就别吸烟了！”这样的标语。他的想法很好，试图引导青年减少烟量。但是考虑“青年”这个群体的特性了吗？他们只想融入同龄群体！他却让他们“彰显个性”。罗森堡就此指出，那些公共安全的倡导者应该寻求与广告制作商的合作，毕竟他们熟悉并善用同龄压力在青年群体中的影响力。

But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much extraneous detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so potent. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as it's presented here is that it doesn't work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze foundered once state funding was cut. Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes in sexual behavior is limited and mixed. And the Willow Creek church's table-groups experiment was abandoned after two years.

但是，罗森堡关于群体自愈的一般效果的表述，就没那么有说服力了。在她的《别怕CLUB》书中，充斥了太多无关紧要的事例。她也没有从社会学及生物学的角度，去论证同龄压力的有效性。事实上，她所提出的群体自愈理论并非总是能够长久地稳定运行，这也成为了这一理论的致命缺陷。“对烟气缭绕说不”这个项目在ZF撤资以后就土崩瓦解了；“珍爱生命”对于性行为的持续纠正也是能力有限而须辩证待之；而柳溪大教堂的桌友聚会在两年以后便无人问津了。

There's no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research (mentioned briefly by Rosenberg) shows that positive health habits — as well as negative ones — spread through networks of friends via a phenomenon that epidemiologists call social contagion. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously emulate the behavior we see every day.

当然，同龄人会极大程度上影响我们的行为，这是毋庸置疑的。一项最新的研究（罗森堡的书中也简要提到这一研究）表明，健康的生活习惯会在朋友间传播（陋习其实也如此）——源于传播学家称之为群体同化的现象。同龄压力就是其中一种隐蔽的形式——我们每天都会不自觉地模仿他人的行为。
Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It's like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And that's the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.

专家及政客都试图挑选一些道德高尚、举止得体的人，并以他们为导向，影响同龄人的行为。遗憾的是，我们对于这种尝试的效果却知之甚少。这就像在学校里，老师让那些捣蛋鬼坐到最后一排，然后给他们安排一个行为规范的同桌——但这种招数就从没奏效过。这就是群体自愈选择外部性的问题——现实总是物以类聚人以群分，学校也如此。
  
This article originally appeared in the April 4, 2011 issue of TIME.

!感-杠-问?

原版文章的部分词汇注释，如下：
goad noun [countable] something that forces someone to do something [from LDOCE5]
official noun [countable] someone who is in a position of authority in an organization [from LDOCE5]
recipient noun [countable] formal someone who receives something [from LDOCE5]
Pulitzer Prize The Pulitzer Prize is a U.S. award for achievements in newspaper and online journalism, literature and musical composition. [from WIKIPEDIA]
MacArthur Fellows Program The MacArthur Fellows Program or MacArthur Fellowship (nicknamed the Genius Grant) is an award given by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation each year to typically 20 to 40 United States citizens or residents, of any age and working in any field, who "show exceptional merit and promise for continued and enhanced creative work". [from WIKIPEDIA]
a (whole) host of people / things a large number of people or things [from LDOCE5]
in action someone or something that is in action is doing the job or activity they are trained or designed to do [from LDOCE5]
initiative noun [countable] an important new plan or process to achieve a particular aim or to solve a particular problem [from LDOCE5]
megachurch A megachurch is a church having 2,000 or more in average weekend attendance. [from WIKIPEDIA]
potluck noun [countable] American English a meal in which everyone who is invited brings something to eat [from LDOCE5]
perceptive adjective someone who is perceptive notices things quickly and understands situations, people’s feelings etc well - used to show approval [from LDOCE5]
spot-on adjective British English informal exactly right [from LDOCE5]
mobilize verb [transitive] to start to use the things or people you have available in order to achieve something [from LDOCE5]
implore verb [intransitive and transitive] formal to ask for something in an emotional way [= beg] [from LDOCE5]
billboard noun [countable] a large sign used for advertising [from LDOCE5]
crave verb [transitive] to have an extremely strong desire for something [from LDOCE5]
extraneous adjective formal not belonging to or directly related to a particular subject or problem [= irrelevant] [from LDOCE5]
founder verb [intransitive] formal to fail after a period of time because something has gone wrong [from LDOCE5]
epidemiology noun [uncountable] the study of way diseases spread, and how to control them [from LDOCE5]
epidemiology Epidemiology is the study of the patterns, causes, and effects of health and disease in defined populations. [from WIKIPEDIA]
contagion noun [singular] formal a feeling or attitude that spreads quickly between people or places [from LDOCE5]
emotional contagion (Redirected from Social contagion) Emotional contagion is the tendency to catch and feel emotions that are similar to and associated with those of others. [from WIKIPEDIA]
virtuous adjective formal behaving in a very honest and moral way [from LDOCE5]
break something ↔ up to separate something into several smaller parts [from LDOCE5]
engineer verb [transitive often passive] technical to design and plan the building of roads, bridges, machines, etc [from LDOCE5]

!感-杠-问?

考研阅读版本，在原版基础上的删改，如下：

第一段
Come on — everybody's doing it.斜体改为正体。goad改为forcing。drinking, drugs, casual sex最后一个逗号改为and。her new book, Join the Club,的前一个逗号删去。

第二段
the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize and a MacArthur "genius" grant中的and a MacArthur "genius" grant删去。And in Illinois, "table groups" — small gatherings of believers who meet at a weekly potluck — are arranged by the Willow Creek megachurch as a way of deepening its members' religious devotion.删去。

第三段
implores改为pleads。crave改为desire。

第四段
extraneous改为irrelevant。potent改为powerful。foundered改为failed。Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes in sexual behavior is limited and mixed.中的in sexual behavior删去。And the Willow Creek church's table-groups experiment was abandoned after two years.删去。

第五段
An emerging body of research (mentioned briefly by Rosenberg) shows that positive health habits — as well as negative ones — spread through networks of friends via a phenomenon that epidemiologists call social contagion.中的括号插入语删去。a phenomenon that epidemiologists call social contagion改为social communication。emulate改为imitate。

第六段
无删改

!感-杠-问?

原版文中较好的词汇、结构，如下（建议锻炼造句能力，运用到写作中）：
herd mentality（大众心理是一个论及现代年轻人时的话题类词汇）
Come on — everybody’s doing it.（这已成为一种跟随潮流的标志语）
peer pressure（与这个词相关联的还有另一个词，peer acceptance，两者经常可以一起讨论）
sth. is what most of us think of when we do sth.（这一句式经常运用在驳论文的开头，大部分认为的东西一般与文章论点相反）
lead to（表示原因、结果、时间上的先后等，在写作时可以用一个非限定性定语从句，或分词短语来表示结果等，以替代so that等，但语气上比so that等弱得多）
offer a host of examples of sth.（注意搭配，用offer替换我们常用的give，用a host of替代常用的many或a lot of等）
in action（有purposely、deliberately的意思）
sponsor（相似意思的还有fund、finance等）
antismoking（用来替换actions against smoking，简短而精炼）
promote（一个好词，虽然不难，经常可以表示“使……好转”一类的意思）
peer(s)（论及年轻人时的话题类词汇）
believer（这种信仰不只是宗教的，也完全可以是其他的“坚信者”，如a believer of moral abstracts，甚至可以引申到更为广义的“支持者”）
deepen（相似的还有strengthen、enhance、reinforce、intensify等，但意思也不完全不同，要注意区别，有的句子中的这些词并不是可以随便替换的）
devotion（有loyalty的意思）
promising（有hopeful、feasible的意思）
spot-on（替换right）
demonstrate（一般表示“政治性的示威或要求”）
flawed（相似还有defective等）
dare（可作行为动词，也可作情态动词，用法较多）
(be) aimed at（表示目的，在写作时可以用一个非限定性定语从句，或分词短语来表示目的，以替代in order to等）
do nothing more than sth.（注意尽管语法上说sth.是than的介词宾语，than sth.是比较状语，但这里sth.语意上其实是do的宾语。nothing more than只起强调作用，意思同only，但语气更强）
fit in (with sb.)（相当于be accepted，语意上是被动，形式上是主动）
argue（提出观点，表示“认为”，注意是肯定语气。另外，所有观点类的动词，只能运用在引用他人观点，而不是表达自己观点。表达自己观点的时候，直接说就可以，不必有任何的观点类动词引导）
convincingly（强化语气的词）
advocate（可以是动词，也可以是名词。动词是观点类动词，名词是观点类名词。）
take a page from sb.（表示“借鉴”）
be skilled at (doing) sth.
apply（意思很多，还包括各种application等词组）
persuasive（很少见到肯定语气，一般总是less persuasive，在驳论文中较多见）
be filled with（表示充满，替代形如there are many等低层次句型）
exploration（有explanation、analysis的意思）
factor（表示“原因”的词，相似的还有reason、impact、point等）
potent（替换powerful）
flaw（相似的还有defect、demerit、error、mistake、fault等，但在语气上有较大差别）
work（有operate的意思）
founder（有be destroyed、be ruined、fail、collapse的意思）
evidence that ... is limited and mixed（that引导同位语从句。驳论句式）
there’s no doubt that ...（that引导同位语从句。立论句式）
exert enormous influence on sth. / sb.（注意搭配，用exert替换常用的have等，另外这里exert还可以用impose来替代，但语意上有区别，impose influence on sb.这种影响通常是后面的这个人不愿意的，或者说强加的影响）
emerging（有developing的意思）
an emerging body of research show that ...（that是宾语从句。立论句式）
brief(ly)（两个意思，一、简要，二、短暂）
as well as（一般作插入语，标点符号有3个种处理方式，一、左右两边破折号，二、左右两边逗号，三、左右两边没标点。前两种区别不大，最后一种一般as well as后面的东西很短）
social contagion（论及青年、奢侈品等社会话题中，可以使用的话题类词汇）
We unconsciously emulate the behavior we see every day.（理论论据，可以背一下）
adj. + linking verb + that / wh- ...（倒装句句式，很有气势）
pair sb. with sth.（相似的还有furnish、equip、arm等）
The tactic never really works.（一句短句。驳论句）
insist on (doing) sth.（其实不只是“坚持”的意思，而是更广义的“愿意”或“自愿”或“想要”的意思，有be willing to do sth.的意思）

!感-杠-问?

2012 TEXT 2
原版地址：
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/04/24/vermont_yankee_plants_owner_must_honor_its_own_promises/
全文如下：
GLOBE EDITORIAL
Vermont Yankee plant’s owner must honor its own promises
April 24, 2011

A DEAL is a deal — except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the state’s stringent nuclear regulations.

Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not: challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in federal court, as part of a last-ditch effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It’s a stunning move.

The conflict in Vermont has been brewing since 2002, when the Louisiana-based corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor on the Connecticut River in Vernon, near the Massachusetts border. As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to the Vermont legislature’s approval. Then, too, the company went along.

Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leaking radioactive tritium, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management — especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged by Entergy’s behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension. And that was before the disaster in Japan rekindled popular concern over nuclear plants, especially older reactors like the one at Vermont Yankee, which is similar in design to those at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant.

Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues. The legal issues in the case are murky; the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, but legal scholars say the Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point.

The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so battered that it has nothing left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a public trust. Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth. Vowing to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews the company’s application, it should keep in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.

© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.

!感-杠-问?

考研阅读版本，如下：

A deal is a deal — except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the state’s strict nuclear regulations.

A DEAL is a deal中第一个DEAL改为小写。stringent改为strict。

Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not: challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It’s a stunning move.

in federal court中in后添入the。last-ditch改为desperate。

The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval. Then, too, the company went along.

The conflict in Vermont中in Vermont删去。brewing改为surfacing。Louisiana-based删去。on the Connecticut River in Vernon, near the Massachusetts border除in Vernon外删去。to the Vermont legislature’s approval中the删去。

EitherEntergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn’tforesee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partialcollapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the discovery of an underground pipesystem leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management — especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged by Entergy’s behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.

leaking radioactive tritium改为leakage。And that was before the disaster in Japan rekindled popular concern over nuclear plants, especially older reactors like the one at Vermont Yankee, which is similar in design to those at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant.删去。

Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues. The legal issues in the case are obscure: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, legal scholars say the Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point.

The legal issues in the case are murky; the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, but legal scholars say the Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.中murky改为obscure，分号改为冒号，the Supreme Court前添入whereas，but删去。

The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has nothing left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a public trust. Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth. Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company’s application, it should keep in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.

battered改为damaged。Vowing改为Pledging。the Nuclear Regulatory Commission后添入(NRC)。

!感-杠-问?

翻译原版文章如下（译文版权由我所有，求交流，求纠正）：
GLOBE EDITORIAL
全球版社论
Vermont Yankee plant’s owner must honor its own promises
佛蒙特彦科核电站（Vermont Yankee）——诚实守信的君子？背信弃义的小人？
April 24, 2011

A DEAL is a deal — except, apparently, when Entergy is involved. The company, a major energy supplier in New England, provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the state’s stringent nuclear regulations.
人说人话——但安吉特（Entergy）却说鬼话。安吉特是纽格兰（New England）的主要能源供应企业。上周，其宣称不再遵守佛蒙特州严格的核能限制，而此前该公司则一直承诺接受该州的这些规定。安吉特的这一言论随即激起了巨大的轰动。

Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not: challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in federal court, as part of a last-ditch effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running. It’s a stunning move.
然而安吉特不但不知悔改，反而变本加厉、得寸进尺。该企业撕毁约定，将佛蒙特州的规定告到了联邦法院，称其违宪。当然，这种惊人之举只能视作安吉特最后的垂死挣扎——他仍期冀继续运营佛蒙特彦科核电站。

The conflict in Vermont has been brewing since 2002, when the Louisiana-based corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, an aging reactor on the Connecticut River in Vernon, near the Massachusetts border. As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to the Vermont legislature’s approval. Then, too, the company went along.
这场纷争从2002年起就埋下了越演越烈的苗头。当时，路易斯安那州的总公司买下了佛蒙特州仅有的一个破旧的核电厂。该厂位于佛蒙特州与马塞诸塞州的边界附近的维侬（Vernon），毗邻肯奈克迪克特河（Connecticut River）。作为州政府在同意交易时的附加条件，安吉特同意2012年以后所有的运营行为都要经由州政府批准。在2006年，佛蒙特州更进一步要求，该厂营业执照的所有延期申请都必须提请州议会准许。当时，安吉特对此也并未提出任何异议。

Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next. A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leaking radioactive tritium, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management — epecially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. Enraged by Entergy’s behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension. And that was before the disaster in Japan rekindled popular concern over nuclear plants, especially older reactors like the one at Vermont Yankee, which is similar in design to those at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant.
安吉特可能就从没真正想过遵守这些承诺——亦或是当时就压根没预料到之后所有灾难性的意外事件。在2007年，冷却塔局部坍塌。其后，又发现地下管线放射性氚泄漏，而公司事后又发表了关于管线误导性的言论。这些无不引起民众质疑：佛蒙特彦科核电站真的安全吗？公司的管理真的可靠吗？基于安吉特糟糕的管理情况，去年佛蒙特州的参议员以24票对6票决定，不再延长安吉特的营业执照有效期限。随后没多久的日本核泄漏丑闻，更是重新唤醒了人们对于核电站的担忧。特别是那些陈旧的核反应堆——当然就包括佛蒙特彦科核电站，这些核反应堆在设计上和福岛第一核电站（Fukushima Daiichi）的几近无异，而后者如今已是一片狼藉。

Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues. The legal issues in the case are murky; the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power, but legal scholars say the Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point.
但如今安吉特却突然宣称，其2002年与佛蒙特州订立的协议无效。他的依据是2006年通过的一部新法，该法将核能项目的管理权只赋予给联邦政府。然而，这一问题还真有些复杂，因为最高法院裁定州政府也有核能的部分管理权。有法学专家表示，此次安吉特的案子可能成为一个案例，来确定“部分”管理权的具体权限。毕竟如果每个州都有自己的核能管理规范的话，反倒要担心这些规范太过凌乱无序。所有这些讨论倒也要归功于安吉特，假如他不食言的话，什么讨论都没了。

The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so battered that it has nothing left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a public trust. Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth. Vowing to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews the company’s application, it should keep in mind what promises from Entergy are worth.
安吉特似乎之前已经觉得自己在佛蒙特州已名誉扫地，也就不怕破罐子破摔，和州政府对着干了。但其实，这对其还是有负面影响的。是公众的信任赋予企业经营核电厂的权利。安吉特不是只有这一个核电厂，他在美国还有另外的11座，其中就包括普利茅斯（Plymouth）的皮尔格里姆核电站（Pilgrim Nuclear）。难道这11座也经得起“破摔”吗？安吉特誓言绝对保证皮尔格里姆的安全运转，且已向联邦政府申请延长20年的经营权。然而，核能管理委员会在审议这次申请时，肯定会因佛门特州事件，而对这一承诺打上个大大的问号。

© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.