考研英语真题出处全文翻译(持续更新中)

!感-杠-问?

原版文章的部分词汇注释，如下：
provoke verb [transitive] to cause a reaction or feeling, especially a sudden one [from LDOCE5]
justified adjective having an acceptable explanation or reason [from LDOCE5]
renege verb [intransitive] formal renege on an agreement / deal / promise etc to not to do something you have promised or agreed to do [= go back on] [from LDOCE5]
long-standing, longstanding adjective having continued or existed for a long time [from LDOCE5]
stringent adjective a stringent law, rule, standard etc is very strict and must by obeyed [from LDOCE5]
last-ditch adjective a last-ditch attempt / effort etc a final attempt to achieve something before it is too late [from LDOCE5]
brew verb be brewing if something unpleasant is brewing, it will happen soon [from LDOCE5]
tritium Tritium (symbol T or 3H, also known as hydrogen-3) is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. [from WIKIPEDIA]
enrage verb [transitive usually passive] to make someone very angry [from LDOCE5]
rekindle verb [transitive] to make someone have a particular feeling, thought etc again [= reawaken] [from LDOCE5]
murky adjective complicated and difficult to understand [= obscure] [from LDOCE5]
patchwork noun [uncountable] a type of sewing in which many coloured squares of cloth are stitched together to make one large piece [from LDOCE5]
battered adjective old and in bad condition [from LDOCE5]
vow verb [transitive] to make a serious promise to yourself or someone else [= promise] [from LDOCE5]

!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）：
honor one’s promises（动宾搭配）
... — except when sth. is involved.（表示前一命题对这一事物不成立）
A provoke one’s outrage over B（注意介词搭配）
abide by sth.（注意介词搭配，有agree、accept的意思）
instead（句首副词，表转折，相似的还有however、whereas、nevertheless、nonetheless、unfortunately、still、yet、alas、though（句中或句末）等）
challenge（有question about的意思）
a last-ditch effort（最后一搏，虽然a last effort也很常用，但last-ditch更为文艺）
It’s a stunning move.（短句，富有气势，可用在某些负面例证后。替换surprise the public等中式英语）
since / from / until etc sometime when ... （介词+时间+when的定语从句，这种句型很常见，类似的还有介词+地点+where的定语从句）
aging（替换old，事实上old这个词在当代文章中已不多见）
as a condition of (doing) sth.（作为……的条件）
regulator（替换governor，两者都有ZF的意思。但regulator更为隐晦，类似的还有administrator。但是supervisor、monitor等是监管者的意思，不是ZF。）
operate（类似的还有run、work等）
go a step further（表示递进，替换moreover等）
be subject to sth.（注意介词搭配，有adapt、obey的意思）
go along（有accept的意思）
either ..., or ...（可表示句子的选择，并非只能是句子的某一成分）
a string of ...（有continuous、series of的意思）
partial(ly)（软化语气的万能词）
A raise one’s questions about B（注意介词搭配）
be similar in design / usage / meaning / shape etc to sth.（注意介词搭配）
the stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant（关于人与自然关系时可以引用的例证）
Had A done B, C should / would / could / might have done D.（if对过去虚拟的倒装句，正常语序是If A had done B, C should / would / could /might have done D.，倒装句可以加强气势）
keep one’s word
Permission to do sth. is a public trust.（论述公众给某些个人或集体特殊权利时的句型）
vow to do sth.（有promise的意思）
keep in mind that / wh- ...（原始结构是keep sth. in mind，因为that / wh-从句太长，因此后置）

!感-杠-问?

2012 TEXT2原版翻译的部分修改（由于该文不知哪里涉及到了违禁内容，为了不再“待审核”，就在这里回复修改了），如下：

第一段：
安吉特的这一言论随即激起了巨大的轰动。→公司的这一言论随即激起了巨大的轰动。

第三段：
这场纷争从2002年起就埋下了越演越烈的苗头。→这场纷争在2002年就埋下了祸根，并从此愈演愈烈。

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）。→当时，路易斯安那州的总公司买下了佛蒙特州仅有的一个核电厂——尽管该厂破旧不堪。这个核电站位于佛蒙特州与马塞诸塞州边界附近的维侬（Vernon），毗邻肯奈克迪克特河（Connecticut River）。

作为州ZF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ZF批准。→作为州ZF在同意交易时的附加条件，安吉特承诺2012年以后所有的运营行为都要经由州ZF批准。

当时，安吉特对此也并未提出任何异议。→当时，公司对此并未提出任何异议。

第四段：
去年佛蒙特州的参议员以24票对6票决定→去年佛蒙特州的参议院以24票对6票决定

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→这些核反应堆在设计上和福岛第一核电站（Fukushima Daiichi）几近无异

第六段：
安吉特似乎之前已经觉得自己在佛蒙特州已名誉扫地→安吉特似乎之前觉得自己在佛蒙特州已名誉扫地

!感-杠-问?

2012 TEXT 3
原版地址：http://classic.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/29495/article/The-Evolution-of-Credibility全文如下：

The Evolution of Credibility
By: Frederick Grinnell | February 1, 2011

The winding path that an interesting result takes to become a bona fide discovery is just one of the topics covered in this new book on the practice of science.

When I was a graduate student in biochemistry at Tufts University School of Medicine, I read an abridged version of Montaigne’s Essays. My friend Margaret Rea (a.k.a. Marci Trindle) and I spent hours wandering around Boston discussing the meaning and implications of the essays. Michel de Montaigne lived in the 16th century near Bordeaux, France. He did his writing in the southwest tower of his chateau, where he surrounded himself with a library of more than 1,000 books, a remarkable collection for that time. Montaigne posed the question, “What do I know?” By extension, he asks us all: Why do you believe what you think you know? My latest attempt to answer Montaigne can be found in Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic, originally published in January 2009 and soon to be out in paperback from the Oxford University Press.

Scientists tend to be glib about answering Montaigne’s question. After all, the success of technology testifies to the truth of our work. But the situation is more complicated.

In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and convoluted route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experiences. Prior knowledge and interests influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.

Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes communal scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a full-fledged discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.

Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works its way through the community, a dialectic of interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.

Two paradoxes infuse this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Szent-Györgyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.

In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim—a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. “We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason,” she wrote in a book with that title. In the case of science, it is the commons of the mind where we find the answer to Montaigne’s question: Why do you believe what you think you know?

Frederick Grinnell is Professor of Cell Biology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, where he has been on the faculty since 1972. He divides his time between doing science and reflecting on what doing science means. Everyday Practice of Science was shortlisted for the Royal Society Prize for Science Books 2010.

!感-杠-问?

考研阅读版本，如下：

In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experiences. Prior knowledge and interests influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.

原版第一、二段、导言、番外删去。convoluted改为complicated。

Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.

communal改为collective。full-fledged改为mature。

Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works its way through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.

a dialectic of改为the。

Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Szent-Györgyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody hasthought.” But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.

infuse改为exist throughout。

In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim—a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. “We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.”

reason,”逗号改为句号。she wrote in a book with that title. In the case of science, it is the commons of the mind where we find the answer to Montaigne’s question: Why do you believe what you think you know?删去。

!感-杠-问?

翻译原版文章如下（译文版权由我所有，望交流，望指正）：

The Evolution of Credibility
科学研究“真理化”的过程
By: Frederick Grinnell | February 1, 2011

The winding path that an interesting result takes to become a bona fide discovery is just one of the topics covered in this new book on the practice of science.
新书自荐。关键词：科学应用；摘要：通过曲折的方式，有趣的研究结果最终成为理论与真理。

When I was a graduate student in biochemistry at Tufts University School of Medicine, I read an abridged version of Montaigne’s Essays. My friend Margaret Rea (a.k.a. Marci Trindle) and I spent hours wandering around Boston discussing the meaning and implications of the essays. Michel de Montaigne lived in the 16th century near Bordeaux, France. He did his writing in the southwest tower of his chateau, where he surrounded himself with a library of more than 1,000 books, a remarkable collection for that time. Montaigne posed the question, “What do I know?” By extension, he asks us all: Why do you believe what you think you know? My latest attempt to answer Montaigne can be found in Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic, originally published in January 2009 and soon to be out in paperback from the Oxford University Press.
当我还在塔夫茨大学医学院（Tufts University School of Medicine）攻读生物化学研究生的时候，阅读了蒙田（Montaigne）《随笔集》的简化版。当时，我和朋友玛格丽特·李（Margaret Rea，又名Marci Trindle）在波士顿游曳了好几个小时，讨论了蒙田随笔的意义与内涵。马歇尔·蒂·蒙田（Michel de Montaigne）居住在16世纪的法国波尔多（Bordeaux）附近。他当时住在一座城堡中。蒙田的文学创作都是在城堡西南方的一座高塔内完成的。这座塔其实就是个图书馆，馆藏超过1000本图书（该数字在当时可谓叹为观止）。他当时提出了一个问题：“我是何德何能？”说得明白些，就是“我为什么总觉得我知道的就是对的？”这值得我们深思。在我的新书《科学的日常应用：当直觉与灵感遭遇现世与系统》中，记述了我最近对于这一问题的思考。该书于2009年1月由哈弗大学出版社（Oxford University Press）初次出版，并将不久推出平装本。

Scientists tend to be glib about answering Montaigne’s question. After all, the success of technology testifies to the truth of our work. But the situation is more complicated.
科学家在回答蒙田的这一命题时，总是不加思考地轻描淡写。他们总觉得，如今的科技成果足以证明“我知道的就是对的”。然而，事实可并不这么简单。

In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and convoluted route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experiences. Prior knowledge and interests influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.
世界百态客观存在，理性客观的学者运用科学的方法发现并将他们联系起来，得出最终的结论。这就是人们理想化的科学发现过程。看似轻巧的过程在科学的日常应用中，就会发现经常困难重重、举步维艰——现实总比理想来得更为复杂。我们总试图理性客观，然而却无法回避每个人独特的生活经验的干扰。每个人都有不同的观念习惯与兴趣爱好，各自的生活经验、人生感悟、做事方式也就不尽相同。世界周遭从而充满了各种曲解、错漏与误导。

Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes communal scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a full-fledged discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.
所以，各种最新科学发现都应辩证视之。像新近标记的新矿一样，这些发现都仍具诸多不确定性。然而，公众对于权威的信任制造了不是真理的真理。这就是将学者个人的“时间、地点人物”推广到社会集体的“任何时间、任何地点、任何人物”的过程。学者个人是客观性的终点，而不应是主观性的起点。

Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works its way through the community, a dialectic of interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the community’s credible discovery.
当个人的主张成为公众的真理之时，学者自身荣获了聪慧的奖誉。与新矿的发现不同，学者个人的主张到社会集体的真理的过程，则完全不受“真理”发现者的控制。在复杂的科学产业的社会结构中，不同的主体各司其职。研究员负责理论发现，编辑及审稿像看守一般负责控制出版物制作，其他科学家再将出版物的理论运用到自己的论文中，社会（包括科学家）最终看到了最新研究并将其应用到现实技术中。在个人主张成为公众真理的过程中，辩证法充当重要作用。它将与该主张相关的科学技术理论——无论统一抑或是对立——都一同融入新主张之中。

Two paradoxes infuse this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Szent-Györgyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated.
但是，这种真理化的过程本身却是矛盾的。其一，科学成果通常总是聚焦于那些主流观点认为存在谬误的东西。几乎没有一个成果是重复论证现实世界深信不疑的东西的。他们的目标是“学术创新”，而不是“重复研究”。因此，最新发表的科学研究，以及那些看似正确且重要的理论，自然都是未来科学家挑战的对象——在他们眼中，这些东西很有可能是有缺陷甚至完全错误的。其二，新奇事物本身总是很难被人接受的。诺贝尔奖获得者、生理学家奥尔贝特·圣捷尔吉（Albert Szent-Györgyi）曾经将科学发现描述为“视众所皆视、思众所未思”的过程。然而，“思众所未思”并将其公开阐述，很有可能意味着会遭到非议。有时，一个真理需要数年才能最终被接受认可。

In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim—a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. “We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason,” she wrote in a book with that title. In the case of science, it is the commons of the mind where we find the answer to Montaigne’s question: Why do you believe what you think you know?
反正最终，科学研究实现就“真理化”了。而这种“真理化”的过程伴随着哲学家安尼特·拜尔（Annette Baier）所定义的“大众观点”。在她的定义中，写道：“我们相互质疑，挑战、修正、完善对方的论证过程及观点。”就科学界而言，正是大众观点回答了蒙田的问题：我为什么总觉得我知道的就是对的？

Frederick Grinnell is Professor of Cell Biology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, where he has been on the faculty since 1972. He divides his time between doing science and reflecting on what doing science means. Everyday Practice of Science was shortlisted for the Royal Society Prize for Science Books 2010.
作者弗雷德里克·格林内尔（Frederick Grinnell）是德州大学西南医学中心（UT Southwestern Medical Center）的细胞生物学教授。从1972年起，他就在该中心工作。在他科研的同时，也试图回答科研本身的内涵。《科学的日常应用》一书名列《2010年科学书籍皇家科技奖》（Royal Society Prize for Science Books 2010）。

!感-杠-问?

原版文章的部分词汇注释，如下：
bona fide adjective real, true, and not intended to deceive anyone [from LDOCE5]
abridged adjective [usually before noun] an abridged book, play etc has been made shorter but keeps its basic structure and meaning [from LDOCE5]
aka (also known as) used when giving someone or something’s real name together with a different name they are known by [from LDOCE5]
chateau noun (plural chateaux) [countable] a castle or large country house in France
paperback noun [countable] a book with a stiff paper cover [from LDOCE5]
glib adjective speaking easily but without thinking carefully - used to show disapproval [from LDOCE5]
idealize (also idealise British English) verb [transitive] to imagine or represent something or someone as being perfect or better than they really are [from LDOCE5]
convoluted adjective complicated and difficult to understand [from LDOCE5]
self-deception noun [uncountable] when you make yourself believe that something is true when it is not [from LDOCE5]
protoscience In the philosophy of science, a protoscience is a new science trying to establish its legitimacy. Protoscience is distinguished from pseudoscience by its standard practices of good science, such as a willingness to be disproven by new evidence, or to be replaced by a more predictive theory. Compare fringe science, which is considered highly speculative or even strongly refuted. Some protosciences go on to become an accepted part of mainstream science. [from WIKIPEDIA]
full-fledged American English,fully-fledged British English adjective [only before noun] completely developed, trained, or established [from LDOCE5]
publication noun [uncountable] the process of printing a book, magazine etc and offering it for sale [from LDOCE5]
dialectic (also dialectics) noun [uncountable] formal a method of examining and discussing ideas in order to find the truth, in which two opposing ideas are compared in order to find a solution that includes them both [from LDOCE5]
infuse verb [transitive] formal to fill something or someone with a particular feeling or quality [from LDOCE5]
duplicate verb [transitive] to repeat something in exactly the same way [from LDOCE5]
reason verb [intransitive] to think and make judgments [from LDOCE5]
reasoning noun [uncountable] the process of thinking carefully about something in order to make a judgment [from LDOCE5]
Royal Society the oldest and most respected scientific society in the UK, started in the 17th century. Its members are called ‘Fellows’ and they are elected if they have done high-quality work in any area of science. There is a similar society for people working in the humanities, called the British Academy. [from LDOCE5]

!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）：
evolution（有process的意思）
credibility / credible
practice（有application的意思）
spend sometime doing something
the meaning and implications of
surround oneself with something
remarkable / remarkably
for the time
an attempt to do something
everyday（有daily的意思）
original(ly)
tend to do something（可理解为系动词的一种）
after all（不只是“毕竟”，具体意思如下）
after all
1 in spite of what you thought was true or expected to happen（表示转折）
2 used to say that something should be remembered or considered, because it helps to explain what you have just said （表示解释说明，即“毕竟”的意思）
testify
be waiting to be done
carry out the work（注意动宾搭配）
frequently（与always等频率副词相同，也可表示泛指程度）
ambiguous（与vague相似）
convoluted（与complicated、complex等相似，替换difficult）
aim to do something（表目的，可用非限定性现在分词短语）
context（有circumstance、situation、condition的意思）
Prior knowledge and interests influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take.（这句话可以记忆）
misinterpretation（与misunderstanding相似）
abound
consequently（句首副词，表示结果）
similar to（介词词组，相当于like）
be full of
transform A (in)to B
full-fledged
A is the goal, not the starting point.（该句型可以记忆，并可以转换成B is the starting point, not the goal）
unlike（有转折的意思）
take control of
善用as从句
a dialectic of interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs (about ...)（可以记忆）
paradox
infuse（及物动词，类似于abound in）
focus on（有emphasize、pay / place emphasis to、highlight、spotlight的意思，这几个词可以替代使用，特别是一篇文章中多次使用“强调”时）
prevailing（替代popular，动词prevail替代be popular）
view A as B（像“把A视作B”一类的动词多了去了，如see、describe、acknowledge、accept、regard、take、recognize、think of等，不胜枚举）
incomplete and incorrect
accompany（及物动词，其后不能加with）
appear to do something（与seem to do something类似）
modification and refutation（动词形式是modify and refute，modify与revise类似，refute与retort类似，名词形式分别为revision和retort）
novelty (n.) / novel (adj.)
provoke（通常后面加情感类名称）
happen to something
correspond to
reason (v.)
in the case of（与as for、as to、in terms of类似）
it is ... that / who / when / where ...（善用强调句，特别是文章结尾部分）
be on the faculty
divide one’s time between A and B / among(st) A, B, C ... and Z

!感-杠-问?

2012 TEXT 4
原版地址：http://www.economist.com/node/*，全文如下：
Enemies of progress
The biggest barrier to public- sector reform are the unions
Mar 17th 2011 | from the print edition

IF JIMMY HOFFA were reincarnated as a modern trade unionist, he would probably represent civil servants. When Hoffa's Teamsters were in their prime in 1960, only one in ten American government workers belonged to a union; now 36% do. In 2009 the number of unionists in America's public sector passed that of their brethren in the private sector. In continental Europe most civil servants belong to unions, though these generally straddle the private sector as well. In Britain more than half of public-sector workers but only about 15% of private-sector ones are unionised.

There are three reasons for the public-sector unions' clout. First, they can shut things down without suffering much in the way of consequences. Second, they are mostly bright and well-educated. There are some Luddites left, such as Bob Crow of London's perennially striking Tube drivers. But it is much harder to argue with Randi Weingarten, the articulate head of the American Federation of Teachers. Most workers in the public sector are women, and many of them are professional types. A quarter of America's public-sector workers have a university degree. Officers of the British Medical Association (which represents doctors) and America's National Education Association (the biggest teachers' union) often appear on the news as experts on health and education rather than as representatives of interest groups.

Third, they now dominate left-of-centre politics. Some of their ties go back a long way. Britain's Labour Party, as its name implies, has long been associated with trade unionism. Its current leader, Ed Miliband, owes his position to votes from public-sector unions. Spain's prime minister still likes to brandish his union card. In America the links have become more explicit. Between 1989 and 2004 the biggest spender in federal elections was the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and $39.4m of the $40m it shelled out over that period went to Democrats. One in ten of the delegates at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver was a teacher.

At the state level their influence can be even more fearsome. Mark Baldassare of the Public Policy Institute of California points out that much of the state's budget is patrolled by unions. The teachers' unions keep an eye on schools, the CCPOA on prisons and a variety of labour groups on health care. It was the big public-sector unions which squashed the 2005 reforms proposed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, then California's governor.

In many rich countries average wages in the state sector are higher than in the private one. But the real gains come in benefits and work practices. Politicians have repeatedly “backloaded” public-sector pay deals, keeping the pay increases modest but adding to holidays and especially pensions that are already generous.

Many Germans were horrified to discover that the EU rescue package for Greece last year helped to bail out public-sector workers who could retire in their mid-50s on almost full pay. One scam in American cities has been to link pensions to employees' earnings in their final year, rather than average earnings over a longer period. Naturally the subway drivers or policemen concerned put in heroic overtime in that final year.

Reform has been vigorously opposed, perhaps most egregiously in education, where charter schools, vouchers, academies and merit pay all faced drawn-out battles. Even though there is plenty of evidence that the quality of the teachers is the most important variable, teachers' unions have fought against getting rid of bad ones and promoting good ones.

As the cost to everyone else (in terms of higher taxes and sloppier services) has become clearer, politicians have begun to clamp down. In Wisconsin the unions have rallied thousands of supporters against Scott Walker, the hardline Republican governor. But many within the public sector suffer under the current system too.

John Donahue at Harvard's Kennedy School points out that the egalitarian culture in Western civil services suits those who want to stay put but is bad for high achievers. Heads of departments often get only two or three times the average pay. As Mr Donahue observes, the only American public-sector workers who earn well above $250,000 a year are university sports coaches and the president of the United States. Hank Paulson took a 99.5% pay cut when he left Goldman Sachs to become America's treasury secretary. Bankers' fat pay packets have attracted much criticism, but a public-sector system that does not reward high achievers may be a much bigger problem for America.

from the print edition | Special report

!感-杠-问?

考研阅读版本，如下：

If the trade unionist Jimmy Hoffa were alive today, he would probably represent civil servants. When Hoffa's Teamsters were in their prime in 1960, only one in ten American government workers belonged to a union; now 36% do. In 2009 the number of unionists in America's public sector passed that of their brethren in the private sector. In Britain, more than half of public-sector workers but only about 15% of private-sector ones are unionised.

IF JIMMY HOFFA were reincarnated as a modern trade unionist改为If the trade unionist Jimmy Hoffa were alive today。brethren改为fellow members。In continental Europe most civil servants belong to unions, though these generally straddle the private sector as well.删去。In Britain后加逗号。unionised改为unionized。

There are three reasons for the public-sector unions' thriving. First, they can shut things down without suffering much in the way of consequences. Second, they are mostly bright and well-educated. A quarter of America's public-sector workers have a university degree. Third, they now dominate left-of-centre politics. Some of their ties go back a long way. Britain's Labor Party, as its name implies, has long been associated with trade unionism. Its current leader, Ed Miliband, owes his position to votes from public-sector unions.

clout改为thriving。There are some Luddites left, such as Bob Crow of London's perennially striking Tube drivers. But it is much harder to argue with Randi Weingarten, the articulate head of the American Federation of Teachers. Most workers in the public sector are women, and many of them are professional types.删去。Officers of the British Medical Association (which represents doctors) and America's National Education Association (the biggest teachers' union) often appear on the news as experts on health and education rather than as representatives of interest groups.删去。原文Third另起一段，考研语篇合为一段。Labour改为Labor。Spain's prime minister still likes to brandish his union card. In America the links have become more explicit. Between 1989 and 2004 the biggest spender in federal elections was the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and $39.4m of the $40m it shelled out over that period went to Democrats. One in ten of the delegates at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver was a teacher.删去。

At the state level their influence can be even more fearsome. Mark Baldassare of the Public Policy Institute of California points out that much of the state's budget is patrolled by unions. The teachers' unions keep an eye on schools, the CCPOA on prisons and a variety of labor groups on health care.

labour改为labor。It was the big public-sector unions which squashed the 2005 reforms proposed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, then California's governor.删去。

In many rich countries average wages in the state sector are higher than in the private one. But the real gains come in benefits and work practices. Politicians have repeatedly “backloaded” public-sector pay deals, keeping the pay increases modest but adding to holidays and especially pensions that are already generous.

未改。

Reform has been vigorously opposed, perhaps most notoriously in education where, charter schools, academies and merit pay all faced drawn-out battles. Even though there is plenty of evidence that the quality of the teachers is the most important variable, teachers' unions have fought against getting rid of bad ones and promoting good ones.

Many Germans were horrified to discover that the EU rescue package for Greece last year helped to bail out public-sector workers who could retire in their mid-50s on almost full pay. One scam in American cities has been to link pensions to employees' earnings in their final year, rather than average earnings over a longer period. Naturally the subway drivers or policemen concerned put in heroic overtime in that final year.整段删去。egregiously改为notoriously。vouchers,删去。

As the cost to everyone else has become clearer, politicians have begun to clamp down. In Wisconsin the unions have rallied thousands of supporters against Scott Walker, the hardline Republican governor. But many within the public sector suffer under the current system, too.

(in terms of higher taxes and sloppier services)删去。system后加逗号。

John Donahue at Harvard's Kennedy School points out that the norms of culture in Western civil services suit those who want to stay put but are bad for high achievers. The only American public-sector workers who earn well above $250,000 a year are university sports coaches and the president of the United States. Bankers' fat pay packets have attracted much criticism, but a public-sector system that does not reward high achievers may be a much bigger problem for America.

egalitarian改为norms of。suits改为suit。is bad for的is改为bad。Heads of departments often get only two or three times the average pay. As Mr Donahue observes,删去，the only的the改为The。Hank Paulson took a 99.5% pay cut when he left Goldman Sachs to become America's treasury secretary.删去。