2024年3月5日发(作者：)

政府类

一、 定语从句（任意挑两个翻译）

1. International aid agencies helping the victims of the

devastating cyclone in Burma are losing as much as a

fifth of the money that they bring into the country because

of arbitrary foreign exchange rules imposed by military

dictatorship.

2. This is a significant boost to the billions already spent

by government and the energy companies and means we

can now get this vital extra support to the people who

really need it in time for the coldest months this winter.

3. The Business and Enterprise Committee is due to

publish the conclusions of its report on Monday and

many in the industry fear that it will call for a

Competition Commission inquiry into the sector, which

is already under scrutiny from Ofgem in a separate

investigation.

4. Under the measures, which will be implemented by

the end of the year, teenage foreign brides and

bridegrooms will be barred from entering Britain on

marriage visas. The minimum age at which British

citizens can sponsor a foreigner to enter the country

as a spouse is to rise from 18 to 21, as is the minimum

age at which a bride or groom can themselves enter

on a marriage visa.

5. Parents whose children download music and films

illegally will be blacklisted and have their Internet access

curbed under government reforms to fight online piracy.

6. The Anglo-French group, whose shares fell 10 per cent

yesterday, believe the strategy is the only way to

encourage passengers to make more journeys through the

under-used tunnel, which faces a cash crunch in 2006

when government subsidies run out at the same time that

the debt repayments ratchet up.

7. The evidence suggests that this is exactly what is now

happening. Americans are driving less and buying more

fuel-efficient cars. Demand growth is slowing in Europe

and should even start to moderate in China and India,

where government-controlled petrol prices have been

raised.

8. It was Harold Wilson’s ambition to make Labor the

natural party of government. Under the leadership of

Tony Blair, this ambition came close to becoming a

reality. There was a good reason why it did so.

二、核心词汇

Public services

Government borrowing

Resources

Regulation

Legislator

Finance

Criterion

Province

State Development Planning Commission

Ministry of Construction

The problem of employment

The strategy of invigorating China through the

development of science and education

Scientific verification

Expand/increase domestic demand and stimulate

consumption

Health care reform

Overall national strength

Welfare

Value

Drop out of school

Reeducation

Offender

Tour

Under-developed region

Natural reserve

Free medical care

Infrastructure

Guarantee

Tax

Immigration

Legalization

Law-enforcing department

Advocate

Administration

Supervision

Autonomous region

Ministry of Education

Low-cost housing

Fund

Scientific and technological progress

The strategy of sustainable development

Stimulate economic growth

Advance with the times

Tuition fee

Community service

Cultural heritage

Eco-tourism

Medical system

Re-employment of laid-off workers

Well-being

Urban residents

Real estate

Poverty

Budget

Authority

Implement

Supervise

State-owned

Military

Obligation

Infrastructure

Investment

Prioritize

Tax revenue

Enact law

Welfare system

Basic human needs

public service

Public transportation

Affordable house

Health care service

Impose censorship on

Non-profit organization

Financial aid

Combat corruption

Bridge the gap between the rich and the poor

Create job opportunities

Improve the quality of service

Ensure social equality

三、万能思路

写作观点：政府有最大的责任。

Causes:

1. Every government’s basic obligation: ensure national

security, stabilize the society, enhance social welfare

system, perfect the public facilities

2. be able to pool and dominate various resources

3. Give top priority to investments on education,

technology and basic human needs, then invest in

entertainment facilities to increase emotional wellbeing

and enrich one’s cultural life.

Eg. 1

Some people think rich countries should help the poor

countries by giving money directly. Others believe that

there are other more effective forms of international aids.

What’s your opinion?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant

examples from your own knowledge or experience.

提纲：

观点：穷国最需要技术和人才。

原因1：科技是第一生产力。

原因2：富国可以帮助穷国培养人才。举例：提供奖学金。

Nowadays, an increasing number of people are

concerned about international aids. However, whether

direct financial support of other effective forms should

developed countries give to developing countries is a

controversial issue. My view is that the read needs of

poor countries are talents and technologies.

First, it is obvious that technology functions as the main

power in the process of a country’s development. That

means without science and technology, the productivity

cannot be effectively enhanced and the wealth cannot be

accumulated at a high speed. So, to help the poor, we’d

better give them tools of making fortune.

Moreover, it is rich countries’ duty to nurture talents for

poor countries in order to help them innovate

independently in a long run. For example, many

countries have already offered scholarships to foreign

students to encourage them to accomplish their dreams.

Undoubtedly, rich countries have more education

resources required to be shared with poor countries, thus,

all talented people can get a chance to be well-educated.

That is not to say that, under no circumstances, should

the rich countries provide aid in the form of money.

Indeed, money helps a lot in a financial crisis or other

urgent problems. But we can never ensure the financial

support given will be spent efficiently under an imperfect

supervision system.

In conclusion, there are some other types of aids rich

countries may choose to provide more efficient help.

Meanwhile, if financial aid is offered, we have to make

sure that the money is being spent on what people really

need and not filling the pockets of corrupt politicians.

Only by doing so, can the poor countries become strong

soon.

Eg.

Some people think that good health is essential to every

person, so medical services should not be run by

profit-making companies. Do the advantages of private

health care outweigh the advantages?

It is said that human beings are the only animal that is

aware it will one day die. Given such knowledge, we are

in a unique position to decide how we live, which in turn

affects how long we live. But when we do get sick,

should we be in hands of for-profit companies or

government? I think ideally it should be some

combination of both.

For-profit insurance companies have pros and cons. On

the one hand, because they want to make money, they

might not agree to all the expensive treatments a sick

person wants or needs. On the other hand, individuals

will be motivated to stay healthy and take care of

themselves so they do not have to pay such high

insurance rates.

Government-run healthcare is also a mixed bag. One

advantage is that it ensures all people, regardless of

income, have at least some basic medical coverage. The

disadvantage, though, is that individuals have no

incentive to take good care of their health. After all, if

they eat poorly or smoke and get sick, it is not they that

have to pay for it.

Clearly the ideal choice would be a combination of both

private and public health insurance. This way everyone

can have basic coverage, but if people have the resources

to buy private insurance they are free to do so and it does

not place too big a burden on government.

So by combining the benefits of both systems we can

achieve health care that is complete and fair. This is

important because in any society both the government

and the individual have responsibilities. When it comes

to health, we all have a part to play.

Eg.

Housing shortages in big cities can have severe

consequences. Only government action can solve this

problem. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Land supply

Interest rate

City planning

Housing policy

Nowadays in big cities all over the world it is not

uncommon to hear people complain about the cost of

housing. It seems that real estate markets are often out of

control and consumers have no say in the matter. As

housing is a basic need, governments need to step in to

protect consumer rights and make sure the markets are

fair.

Let us begin by considering the current financial crisis in

America. This was partly caused by a real estate bubble.

When housing prices go up, people think it is a quick

way to get rich and they borrow more money than they

should. When the prices fall, they owe more than the

house is worth.

Also consider that in any city there are many people with

low and medium incomes. How can such people be

expected to buy expensive real estate when their salaries

are not all high? Clearly governments should step in and

set reasonable limits on prices so that not only the super

rich can afford to live in cities.

If governments do not act, the consequences could be

severe. If the trend continues then eventually people will

stop moving to cities or only the rich will live there and

both of these are unrealistic. It takes all types of people

to make up a city and all people deserve affordable

housing.

So finally the responsibility rests with government to

place reasonable controls on the real estate market.

Housing should be a basic human right, like food and

water, but if government does not act soon, it will be a

privilege only for the rich. What a shame that would be.

Eg.

Some people said the government should not spend

money on building theaters and sports stadiums. Instead,

it should spend more money on medical care and

education. Do you agree or disagree?

Every government faces a similar dilemma: how it

should use its limited resources in the best way. Some

people think that large buildings and stadiums are

perhaps a waste of money, and that it should be used for

more practical things. While every country’s situation

varies, generally countries should invest more in things

like education and less on eye-catching landmarks.

Take the Olympics for example. Of course they were a

great success and gave a good impression, but after they

were finished those expensive buildings just sat there

empty, after huge amounts of money were spent to build

them. If we build amazing buildings but only use them

once in while, what is the point?

Also consider that theaters and sports stadiums are

“wants’ and not “needs”. Sure, everyone likes to relax

and have some fun, but money should be spent on these

things after the more basic and fundamental needs of a

society have been met. And when we do build such

facilities, we do not have to be overly extravagant—it

just is not a necessity.

Medical care and education, however, are incredibly

important to any society. Everyone deserves to be healthy

and have access to qualified doctors in order to feel safe

and secure. Education allows people to work hard, save

money, raise families and achieve their dreams. It is a

basic need in modern society; to be educated is to be able

to contribute and lead a good life.

So finally, governments must separate “needs” and

“wants”, and state-of-the-art sports facilities are certainly

wants, not needs. All societies must make education and

medical care a priority because they are the foundation

for a good life. If these needs are met, we can then

consider other things.

Eg.

Many countries have spent vast sums of money on

armament for the sake of self-defense. Some people

think they should spend money helping reducing poverty

and other issues rather than on weapons. To what extent

do you agree or disagree?

Every country spends some money on self-defense and

its military; it is only natural. But the important

consideration is how much money should be spent?

Some people think that countries should spend less on

the military and more helping to reduce the gap between

rich and poor. My view is that each country needs to pay

attention to both and find the proper balance.

Every country needs to maintain its borders and protect

its people. This seems like a no-brainer. Naturally, some

countries which are geographically large and share

borders with many countries will need to spend more on

its military budget, while others can spend less. We

should also remember that military not only can be used

in self-defense, but also is important in domestic

emergencies and natural disasters.

This is not to say, however, that we should neglect other

important social issues. For a country to be stable and

balanced, governments should also do what it can to

narrow the gap between the rich and the poor as well as

investing in other social programmes. Sometimes the

biggest threat is not from other countries, but from social

inequality. Government must take a balanced approach to

spending its funds.

In fact, there are many countries which do a good job of

balancing spendin on social programmes and

self-defense, like many European countries for example.

Another possibility to consider is for countries to form an

alliance so they can share the cost of self-defense. By

doing so, they will have more to spend on other areas.

So in the end, each country must strike a balance

between dealing with international and domestic threats.

Hopefully one day we will live in a more peaceful time

and we will not need to spend anything on self-defense.

Until then, we should aim for a reasonable middle

ground.