华南理工大学2018年《213翻译硕士日语》考研专业课真题试卷
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题626_英语综合水平测试
626华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：英语综合水平测试适用专业：外国语言文学performances. Rather than playing tricks with alternatives presented to participants, we secretly altered the outcomes of their choices, and recorded how they react. For example, in an early study we showed our volunteers pairs of pictures of faces and asked them to choose the most attractive. In some trials, immediately after they made their choice, we asked people to explain the reasons behind their choices.Unknown to them, we sometimes used a double-card magic trick to secretly exchange one face for the other so they ended up with the face they did not choose. Common sense dictates that all of us would notice such a big change in the outcome of a choice. But the result showed that in 75 per cent of the trials our participants were blind to the mismatch, even offering “reasons” for their“choice”.We called this effect “choice blindness”, echoing change blindness,the phenomenon identified by psychologists where a remarkably large number of people fail to spot a major change in their environment. Recall the famous experiments where X asks Y for directions; while Y is struggling to help, X is switched for Z - and. Y fails to notice. Researchers are still pondering the full implications, but it does show how little information we use in daily life, and undermines the idea that we know what is going on around us.When we set out, we aimed to weigh in on the enduring, complicated debate about self-knowledge and intentionality. For all the intimate familiarity we feel we have with decision making, it is very difficult to know about it from the “inside”: one of the great barriers for scientific research is the nature of s ubjectivity.As anyone who has ever been in a verbal disagreement can prove, people tend to give elaborate justifications for their decisions, which we have every reason to believe are nothing more than rationalizations after the event. To prove such people wrong, though, or even provide enough evidence to change their mind, is an entirely different matter: who are you to say what my reasons are?But with choice blindness we drive a large wedge between intentions and actions in the mind. As our participants give us verbal explanations about choices they never made, we can show them beyond doubt - and prove it - that what they say cannot be true. So our experiments offer a unique window into confabulation (the story-telling we do to justify things after the fact) that is otherwise very difficult to come by. We can compare everyday explanations with those under lab conditions, looking for such things as the amount of detail in descriptions, how coherent the narrative is, the emotional tone, or even the timing or flow of the speech. Then we can create a theoretical framework to analyse any kind of exchange.This framework could provide a clinical use for choice blindness: for example, two of our ongoing studies examine how malingering might develop into truesymptoms, and how confabulation might play a role in obsessive-compulsive disorder.Importantly, the effects of choice blindness go beyond snap judgments. Depending on what our volunteers say in response to the mismatched outcomes of choices (whether they give short or long explanations, give numerical rating or labeling, and so on) we found this interaction could change their future preferences to the extent that they come to prefer the previously rejected alternative. This gives us a rare glimpse into the complicated dynamics of self-feedback (“I chose this, I publicly said so, therefore I must like it”), which we suspect lies behind the formation of many everyday preferences.We also want to explore the boundaries of choice blindness. Of course, it will be limited by choices we know to be of great importance in everyday life. Which bride or bridegroom would fail to notice if someone switched their partner at the altar through amazing sleight of hand? Yet there is ample territory between the absurd idea of spouse-swapping, and the results of our early face experiments.For example, in one recent study we invited supermarket customers to choose between two paired varieties of jam and tea. In order to switch each participant’s choice without them noticing, we created two sets of “magical” jars, with lids at both ends and a divider inside. The jars looked normal, but were designed to hold one variety of jam or tea at each end, and could easily be flipped over.Immediately after the participants chose, we asked them to taste their choice again and tell us verbally why they made that choice. Before they did, we turned over the sample containers, so the tasters were given the opposite of what they had intended in their selection. Strikingly, people detected no more than a third of all these trick trials. Even when we switched such remarkably different flavors as spicy cinnamon and apple for bitter grapefruit jam, the participants spotted less than half of all s witches.We have also documented this kind of effect when we simulate online shopping for consumer products such as laptops or cell phones, and even apartments. Our latest tests are exploring moral and political decisions, a domain where reflection and deliberation are supposed to play a central role, but which we believe is perfectly suited to investigating using choice blindness.Throughout our experiments, as well as registering whether our volunteers noticed that they had been presented with the alternative they did not choose, we also quizzed them about their beliefs about their decision processes. How did they think they would feel if they had been exposed to a study like ours? Did they think they would have noticed the switches? Consistently, between 80 and 90 per cent of people said that they believed they would have noticed something was wrong.Gervais, discovers a thing called “lying” and what it can get him. Within days, M ark is rich, famous, and courting the girl of his dreams. And because nobody knows what “lying” is? he goes on, happily living what has become a complete and utter farce.It’s meant to be funny, but it’s also a more serious commentary on us all. As Americans, we like to think we value the truth. Time and time again, public-opinion polls show that honesty is among the top five characteristics we want in a leader, friend, or lover; the world is full of sad stories about the tragic consequences of betrayal. At the same time, deception is all around us. We are lied to by government officials and public figures to a disturbing degree; many of our social relationships are based on little white lies we tell each other. We deceive our children, only to be deceived by them in return. And the average person, says psychologist Robert Feldman, the author of a new book on lying, tells at least three lies in the first 10 minutes of a conversation. “There’s always been a lot of lying,” says Feldman，whose new book, The Liar in Your Life, came out this month. “But I do think we’re seeing a kind of cultural shift where we’re lying more, it’s easier to lie, and in some ways it’s almost more acceptable.”As Paul Ekman, one of Feldman’s longtime lying colleagues and the inspiration behind the Fox IV series “Lie To Me” defines it，a liar is a person who “intends to mislead,”“deliberately,” without being asked to do so by the target of the lie. Which doesn’t mean that all lies are equally toxic: some are simply habitual –“My pleasure!”-- while others might be well-meaning white lies. But each, Feldman argues, is harmful, because of the standard it creates. And the more lies we tell, even if th ey’re little white lies, the more deceptive we and society become.We are a culture of liars, to put it bluntly, with deceit so deeply ingrained in our mind that we hardly even notice we’re engaging in it. Junk e-mail, deceptive advertising, the everyday p leasantries we don’t really mean –“It’s so great to meet you! I love that dress”– have, as Feldman puts it, become “a white noise we’ve learned to neglect.” And Feldman also argues that cheating is more common today than ever. The Josephson Institute, a nonprofit focused on youth ethics, concluded in a 2008 survey of nearly 30,000 high school students that “cheating in school continues to be rampant, and it’s getting worse.” In that survey, 64 percent of students said they’d cheated on a test during the past year, up from 60 percent in 2006. Another recent survey, by Junior Achievement, revealed that more than a third of teens believe lying, cheating, or plagiarizing can be necessary to succeed, while a brand-new study, commissioned by the publishers of Feldman’s book, shows that 18-to 34-year-olds--- those of us fully reared in this lying culture --- deceive more frequently than the general population.Teaching us to lie is not the purpose of Feldman’s book. His subtitle, in fact, is “the way to truthful relationships.” But if his book teaches us anything, it’s that we should sharpen our skills — and use them with abandon.Liars get what they want. They avoid punishment, and they win others’ affection. Liars make themselves sound smart and intelligent, they attain power over those of us who believe them, and they often use their lies to rise up in the professional world. Many liars have fun doing it. And many more take pride in getting away with it.As Feldman notes, there is an evolutionary basis for deception: in the wild, animals use deception to “play dead” when threatened. But in the modem world, the motives of our lying are more selfish. Research has linked socially successful people to those who are good liars. Students who succeed academically get picked for the best colleges, despite the fact that, as one recent Duke University study found, as many as 90 percent of high-schoolers admit to cheating. Even lying adolescents are more popular among their peers.And all it takes is a quick flip of the remote to see how our public figures fare when they get caught in a lie: Clinton keeps his wife and goes on to become a national hero. Fabricating author James Frey gets a million-dollar book deal. Eliot Spitzer’s wife stands by his side, while “Appalachian hiker” Mark Sanford still gets to keep his post. If everyone else is being rewarded for lying，don’t we need to lie, too, just to keep up?But what’s funny is that even as we admit to being liars, study after study shows that most of us believe we can tell when others are lying to us. And while lying may be easy, spotting a liar is far from it. A nervous sweat or shifty eyes can certainly mean a person’s uncomfortable, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lying. Gaze aversion, meanwhile, has more to do with shyness than actual deception. Even polygraph machines are unreliable. And according to one study, by researcher Bella DePaulo, we’re only able to differentiate a lie from truth only 47 percent of the time, less than if we guessed randomly. “Basically everything we’ve heard about catching a liar is wrong,” says Feldman, who heads the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Ekman, meanwhile, has spent decades studying micro-facial expressions of liars: the split-second eyebrow arch that shows surprise when a spouse asks who was on the phone; the furrowed nose that gives away a hint of disgust when a person says “I love you.” He’s trained everyone from the Secret Service to the TSA, and believes that with close study, it’s possible to identify those tiny emotions. The hard part, of course, is proving them. “A lot of times, it’s easier to believe,” says Feldman. “It takes a lot ofThere were, however, different explanations of this unhappy fact. Sean Pidgeon put the blame on “humanities departments who are responsible for the leftist politics that still turn people off.” Kedar Kulkarni blamed “the absence of a culture that privileges Learning to improve oneself as a human being.” Bethany blamed universities, which because they are obsessed with “maintaining funding” default on th e obligation to produce “well rounded citizens.” Matthew blamed no one，because i n his view the report’s priorities are just what they should be: “When a poet creates a vaccine or a tangible good that can be produced by a Fortune 500 company, I’ll rescind my comment.”Although none of these commentators uses the word, the issue they implicitly raise is justification. How does one justify funding the arts and humanities? It is clear which justifications are not available. You cannot argue that the arts and humanities are able to support themselves through grants and private donations. You cannot argue that a state’s economy will benefit by a new reading of “Hamlet.” You can’t argue -- well you can, but it won’t fly -- that a graduate who is well-versed in the history of Byzantine art will be attractive to employers (unless the employer is a museum). You can talk as Bethany does about “well rounded citizens,” but that ideal belongs to an earlier period, when the ability to refer knowledgeably to Shakespeare or Gibbon or the Thirty Years War had some cash value (the sociologists call it cultural capital). Nowadays, larding your conversations with small bits of erudition is more likely to irritate than to win friends and influence people.At one time justification of the arts and humanities was unnecessary because, as Anthony Kronman puts it in a new book, “Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life，” it was assumed that “a college was above all a place for the training of character, for the nurturing of those intellectual and moral habits that together from the basis for living the best life one can.”It followed that the realization of this goal required an immersion in the great texts of literature, philosophy and history even to the extent of memorizing them, for “to acquire a text by memory is to fix in one’s mind the image and example of the author and his subject.”It is to a version of this old ideal that Kronman would have us return, not because of a professional investment in the humanities (he is a professor of law and a former dean of the Yale Law School), but because he believes that only the humanities can address “the crisis of spirit we now confront” and “restore the wonder which those who have glimpsed the human condition have always felt, and which our scientific civilization, with its gadgets and discoveries, obscures.”As this last quotation makes clear, Kronman is not so much mounting a defense ofthe humanities as he is mounting an attack on everything else. Other spokespersons for the humanities argue for their utility by connecting them (in largely unconvincing ways) to the goals of science, technology and the building of careers. Kronman, however, identifies science, technology and careerism as impediments to living a life with meaning. The real enemies, he declares，are “the careerism that distracts from life as a whole” and “the blind acceptance of science and technology that disguise and deny our human condition.” These false idols，he says，block the way to understanding. We must turn to the humanities if we are to “meet the need for meaning in an age of vast but pointless powers,”for only the humanities can help us recover the urgency of “the question of what living is for.”The humanities do this, Kronman explains, by exposing students to “a range of texts that express with matchless power a number of competing answers to this question.” In the course of this program —Kronman calls it “secular humanism”—students will be moved “to consider which alternatives lie closest to their own evolving sense of self?” As they survey “the different ways of living that have been held up by different authors,” they will be encouraged “to enter as deeply as they can into the experiences, ideas, and values that give each its permanent appeal.” And not only would such a “revitalized humanism” contribute to the growth of the self,it “would put the conventional pieties of our moral and political world in question” and “bring what is hidden into the open — the highest goal of the humanities and the first responsibility of every teache r.”Here then is a justification of the humanities that is neither strained (reading poetry contributes to the state’s bottom line) nor crassly careerist. It is a stirring vision that promises the highest reward to those who respond to it. Entering into a conversation with the great authors of the western tradition holds out the prospect of experiencing “a kind of immortality” and achieving “a position immune to the corrupting powers of time.”Sounds great, but I have my doubts. Does it really work that way? Do the humanities ennoble? And for that matter, is it the business of the humanities, or of any other area of academic study, to save us?The answer in both cases, I think, is no. The premise of secular humanism (or of just old-fashioned humanism) is that the examples of action and thought portrayed in the enduring works of literature, philosophy and history can create in readers the desire to emulate them. Philip Sydney put it as well as anyone ever has when he asks (in “The Defense of Poesy” 1595), “Who reads Aeneas carrying old Anchises on his back that wishes not it was his fortune to perform such an excellent act?” Thrill to this picture of42.What does Anthony Kronman oppose in the process to strive for meaningful life?A.Secular humanism.B. Careerism.C. Revitalized humanismD. Cultural capital.43.Which of the following is NOT mentioned in this article?A.Sidney Carton killed himself.B.A new reading of Hamlet may not benefit economy.C.Faust was not willing to sell his soul.D.Philip Sydney wrote The Defense of Poesy.44.Which is NOT true about the author?A.At the time of writing, he has been in the field of the humanities for 45 years.B.He thinks the humanities are supposed to save at least those who study them.C.He thinks teachers and students of the humanities just learn how to analyze literary effects and to distinguish between different accounts of the foundations of knowledge.D.He thin ks Kronman’s remarks compromise the object its supposed praise.45.Which statement could best summarize this article?A.The arts and humanities fail to produce well-rounded citizens.B.The humanities won’t save us because humanities departments are too leftist.C.The humanities are expected to train character and nurture those intellectual andmoral habits for living a life with meaning.D.The humanities don’t bring about effects in the world but just give pleasure to those who enjoy them.Passage fourJust over a decade into the 21st century, women’s progress can be celebrated across a range of fields. They hold the highest political offices from Thailand to Brazil, Costa Rica to Australia. A woman holds the top spot at the International Monetary Fund; another won the Nobel Prize in economics. Self-made billionaires in Beijing, tech innovators in Silicon Valley, pioneering justices in Ghana—in these and countless other areas, women are leaving their mark.But hold the applause. In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t allowed to drive. In Pakistan, 1,000 women die in honor killings every year. In the developed world, women lag behind men in pay and political power. The poverty rate among women in the U.S. rose to 14.5% last year.To measure the state of women’s progress. Newsweek ranked 165countries, looking at five areas that affect women’s lives; treatment under the law, workforce participation, political power, and access to education and health care. Analyzing datafrom the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, among others, and consulting with experts and academics, we measured 28 factors to come up with our rankings.Countries with the highest scores tend to be clustered in the West, where gender discrimination is against the law, and equal rights are constitutionally enshrined. But there were some surprises. Some otherwise high-ranking countries had relatively low scores for political representation. Canada ranked third overall but 26th in power, behind countries such as Cuba and Burundi. Does this suggest that a woman in a nation’s top office translates to better lives for women in general? Not exactly.“Trying to quantify or measure the impact of women in politics is hard because in very few countries have there been enough women in politics to make a difference,” says Anne-Marie Goetz, peace and security adviser for U.N. Women.Of course, no index can account for everything. Declaring that one country is better than another in the way that it treats more than half its citizens means relying on broad strokes and generalities. Some things simply can’t be measured.And cross-cultural comparisons can t account for difference of opinion.Certain conclusions are nonetheless clear. For one thing, our index backs up a simple but profound statement made by Hillary Clinton at the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. “When we liberate the economic potential of women, we elevate the economic performance of communities, nations, and the world,”she said. “There’s a simulative effect that kicks in when women have greater access to jobs and the economic lives of our countries: Greater political stability. Fewer military conflicts. More food. More educational opportunity for children. By harnessing the economic potential of all women, we boost opportunity for all people.”46.What does the author think about women’s progress so far?A.It still leaves much to be desired.B.It is too remarkable to be measured.C.It has greatly changed women's fate.D.It is achieved through hard struggle.47.In what countries have women made the greatest progress?A.Where women hold key posts in government.B.Where women’s rights are protected by law.C.Where women’s participation in management is high.D.Where women enjoy better education and health care.48.What do Newsweek rankings reveal about women in Canada?A.They care little about political participation.B.They are generally treated as equals by men.C.They have a surprisingly low social status.D.They are underrepresented in politics.49.What does Anne-Marie Goetz think of a woman being in a nation's top office?A.It does not necessarily raise women's political awareness.B.It does not guarantee a better life for the nation's women.C.It enhances women's status.D.It boosts women's confidence.50.What does Hillary Clinton suggest we do to make the world a better place?A.Give women more political power.B.Stimulate women's creativity.C.Allow women access to education.D.Tap women's economic potential.Passage fiveThe idea that government should regulate intellectual property through copyrights and patents is relatively recent in human history, and the precise details of what intellectual property is protected for how long vary across nations and occasionally change. There are two standard sociological justifications for patents or copyrights: They reward creators for their labor, and they encourage greater creativity. Both of these are empirical claims that can be tested scientifically and could be false in some realms.Consider music. Star performers existed before the 20th century, such as Franz Liszt and Niccolo Paganini, but mass media produced a celebrity system promoting a few stars whose music was not necessarily the best or most diverse. Copyright provides protection for distribution companies and for a few celebrities, thereby helping to support the industry as currently defined, but it may actually harm the majority of performers. This is comparable to Anatole France's famous irony, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges." In theory, copyright covers the creations of celebrities and obscurities equally, but only major distribution companies have the resources to defend their property rights in court. In a sense, this is quite fair, because nobody wants to steal unpopular music, but by supporting the property rights of celebrities, copyright strengthens them as a class in contrast to anonymous musicians.Internet music file sharing has become a significant factor in the social lives of children, who download bootleg music tracks for their own use and to give as gifts to friends. If we are to believe one recent poll done by a marketing firm rather than social。
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题828_电气工程综合
A‘，、6，’－r飞zu 。
8288华南理工大学 6.在纯电感负载作星形连接的三相对称电路中，电源线电压为380V，各相电感的J惑2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一向交回）科目名称：电气工程综合适用专业F电机与电器：、电力系统及其自动化：高电压与绝缘技术：电力电子与电力传动；电工理论与新技术共5页一、填空题〈每题5 分，共60分〉抗XL=22Q，则三相负载的无功功率大小为（）。
7. 图5 所示电路中，己知u( t )= (100 + 80v'2-cos(mt + 30°) + 18y2cos(3mt)] V , R=6kQ,(J)L=2kQ，土＝18kQ，则电压表的读数为（〉。
CtJC2 kQl.图l所示电路的输入电阻为（〉。
R L2 A Jc图l 图22.图2所示电路中，元件A吸收的功率为〈）。
3. 图3 所示电路原已稳定，在t = O 瞬间将开关S 闭合，则i( OJ = C＋2 {li(t) E 也I H2 0图3图44.图4所示电路中，己知U8 = 2L0°V ,R =X l = Xe=l Q，则电压表的读数为l5.有一交流信号源，电动势E=120V，内阻Ro=800Q，通过理想变压器给I 值为8 Q 的电阻供电，则此电阻可获得的最大功率为（第 1 页图5 图68.图6所示电路中，运算放大器为理想运放，则电流i=(）。
9.一般来说，同步电机的运行状态包括（①）、（②〉和（＠）；汽轮发电机常采用（④〉结构，而低速、大容量的水轮发电机常采用（@)j 结构。
10.谐波的定义为（①〉，电流谐波总畸变率THDi的定义为（＠）。
单相桥式全控整流电路、三相桥式全控整流电路和移相30°串联2重联结电路输入电涮的最低谐波次数分别为（＠）、（④〉和（⑤）。
11.在各种负荷曲线中，日负荷曲线常用于（①）和（②），年最大负同曲线常用于〈＠）和l(④），年持续负荷曲线中最大负荷利用小时数的定义为（＠〉。
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题870_英语语言文学综合
870华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：英语语言文学综合适用专业：外国语言文学共 6 页Part OneFundamentals of Linguistics and Literature (外国语言学及应用语言学和英语语言文学考生共答部分)I.Define the following terms in your own words（20 points）1.Turn-taking2.Validity3.Modernism4.IronyII．Answer the following questions（40 points）1.The Australian linguist Halliday considers language as having three main functions.Please specify these three functions.2.What are homophones? Please give two pairs of examples.3.What is narration? Can you support your answer with examples?4.What is stream of consciousness? Please explain it with an example from a literarytext you’ve read.Part TwoTest for Students of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics(外国语言学及应用语言学考生必答部分)I．Discuss and comment on the following topics（40 points）petence and performance2.Error and mistake3.The relationship between pragmatics and semantics4.In Hymes’ view, learning language is learning to perform certain functions.II．Analyze the language data according to the requirements（50 points）1.Read the following two passages, and analyze the varieties of language use and thedifferent perspectives on language in an essay of about 250 words. Please back up your idea with the related linguistic theories. (25 points)Passage A：A living language is continually changing, even in a small community. Usually, linguistic changes take place so slowly that it is only by looking back over at least several decades that one can detect changes. The most obvious changes in the language of a large, sophisticated community occur in the field of vocabulary, for in such a community new words are constantly being created and old words discarded.(D. Ward, The Russian Language Today)Passage B：Hampshire: Am I right in thinking − you must correct me if I’m wrong − that your studies of language have led you to the conclusion that there are certain …common … underlying structures common to all languages which constitute something like a universal grammar?Chomsky: Yes. It seems to me that the evidence available to us suggests that there must be some very deep … inborn principles, probably of a highly restrictive nature that determine how knowledge of a language emerges in an individual given the very scattered and degenerate data available to him.Hampshire: Your evidence is derived really from learning, the study of learning language?Chomsky: It seems to me that if you want to study learning in a serious way, what one really has to do is to study a sort of input-output situation. We have an organism of which we know nothing; we know what kind of data is available to it; we can discover that; and the first question we must then try to answer is: what kind of a mental structure does the organism develop when that evidence is presented to it?2.Read and compare the following two passages, and analyze the linguistic structuresand styles in an essay of about 250 words. (25 points)Passage C：We, the peoples of the U. N., determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold suffering to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental rights, in the dignity and worth of the humanperson, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and for these ends, to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of economic and social advancement of all peoples, have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.（The Charter of the United Nations）Passage D：He stepped into the stream. It was a shock. His trousers clung tight to his legs. His shoes felt the gravel. The water was a rising cold shock.…His mouth dry, his heart down, Nick reeled in. He had never seen so big a trout. There was a heaviness, a power not to be held, and then the bulk of him, as he jumped. He looked as broad as a salmon.Nick’s hand was shaky. He reeled in slowly. The thrill had been too much. He felt, vaguely, a little sick, as though it would be better to sit down.(Ernest Hemingway, Big Two-Hearted River)Part ThreeTest for Students of English Language and Literature(英语语言文学考生必答部分)I．Discuss and comment on the following topics（40 points）ment on Hemingway (Code) Heroes.ment on Oedipal Complex in literature.ment on the importance of interior monologue in any literary text written by afemale writer.ment on realism and its significance in literary history.II．Analysis and appreciation（50 points）1.Analyze the following passage from Moby Dick (1851), written by Herman Melville (1819-1891), in an essay of no less than 250 words. (25 points)Now, when I say that I am in the habit of going to sea whenever I begin to grow hazy about the eyes, and begin to be over conscious of my lungs, I do not mean to have it inferred that I ever go to sea as a passenger. For to go as a passenger you must need to have a purse, and a purse is but a rag unless you have something in it. Besides, passengers get sea-sick- grow quarrelsome- don't sleep of nights- do not enjoy themselves much, as a general thing;- no, I never go as a passenger; nor, though I am something of a salt, do I ever go to sea as a Commodore, or a Captain, or a Cook. I abandon the glory and distinction of such offices to those who like them. For my part, I abominate all honorable respectable toils, trials, and tribulations of every kind whatsoever. It is quite as much as I can do to take care of myself, without taking care of ships, barques, brigs, schooners, and what not. And as for going as cook,- though I confess there is considerable glory in that, a cook being a sort of officer on ship-board- yet, somehow, I never fancied broiling fowls;- though once broiled, judiciously buttered, and judgmatically salted and peppered, there is no one who will speak more respectfully, not to say reverentially, of a broiled fowl than I will. It is out of the idolatrous dotings of the old Egyptians upon broiled ibis and roasted river horse, that you see the mummies of those creatures in their huge bake-houses the pyramids.No, when I go to sea, I go as a simple sailor, right before the mast, plumb down into the fore-castle, aloft there to the royal mast-head. True, they rather order me about some, and make me jump from spar to spar, like a grasshopper in a May meadow. And at first, this sort of thing is unpleasant enough. It touches one's sense of honor, particularly if you come of an old established family in the land, the Van Rensselaers, or Randolphs, or Hardicanutes. And more than all, if just previous to putting your hand into the tar-pot, you have been lording it as a country schoolmaster, making the tallest boys stand in awe of you. The transition is a keen one, I assure you, from a schoolmaster to a sailor, and requires a strong decoction of Seneca and the Stoics to enable you to grin and bear it. But even this wears off in time.What of it, if some old hunks of a sea-captain orders me to get a broom and sweep down the decks? What does that indignity amount to, weighed, I mean, in the scales of the New Testament? Do you think the archangel Gabriel thinks anything the less of me, because I promptly and respectfully obey that old hunks in that particular instance? Who ain't a slave? Tell me that. Well, then, however the old sea-captains may order me about- however they may thump and punch me about, I have the satisfaction ofknowing that it is all right; that everybody else is one way or other served in much the same way- either in a physical or metaphysical point of view, that is; and so the universal thump is passed round, and all hands should rub each other's shoulder-blades, and be content.Again, I always go to sea as a sailor, because they make a point of paying me for my trouble, whereas they never pay passengers a single penny that I ever heard of. On the contrary, passengers themselves must pay. And there is all the difference in the world between paying and being paid. The act of paying is perhaps the most uncomfortable infliction that the two orchard thieves entailed upon us. But being paid, - what will compare with it? The urbane activity with which a man receives money is really marvelous, considering that we so earnestly believe money to be the root of all earthly ills, and that on no account can a monied man enter heaven. Ah! how cheerfully we consign ourselves to perdition!Finally, I always go to sea as a sailor, because of the wholesome exercise and pure air of the fore-castle deck. For as in this world, head winds are far more prevalent than winds from astern (that is, if you never violate the Pythagorean maxim), so for the most part the Commodore on the quarter-deck gets his atmosphere at second hand from the sailors on the forecastle. He thinks he breathes it first; but not so. In much the same way do the commonalty lead their leaders in many other things, at the same time that the leaders little suspect it. But wherefore it was that after having repeatedly smelt the sea as a merchant sailor, I should now take it into my head to go on a whaling voyage; this the invisible police officer of the Fates, who has the constant surveillance of me, and secretly dogs me, and influences me in some unaccountable way- he can better answer than anyone else. And, doubtless, my going on this whaling voyage, formed part of the grand programme of Providence that was drawn up a long time ago. It came in as a sort of brief interlude and solo between more extensive performances. I take it that this part of the bill must have run something like this:"Grand Contested Election for the Presidency of the United States."WHALING VOYAGE BY ONE ISHMAEL.""BLOODY BATTLE IN AFFGHANISTAN."Though I cannot tell why it was exactly that those stage managers, the Fates, put me down for this shabby part of a whaling voyage, when others were set down for magnificent parts in high tragedies, and short and easy parts in genteel comedies, and jolly parts in farces- though I cannot tell why this was exactly; yet, now that I recall all the circumstances, I think I can see a little into the springs and motives which being cunningly presented to me under various disguises, induced me to set about performing the part I did, besides cajoling me into the delusion that it was a choice resulting from my own unbiased freewill and discriminating judgment.Chief among these motives was the overwhelming idea of the great whale himself. Such a portentous and mysterious monster roused all my curiosity. Then the wild and distant seas where he rolled his island bulk; the undeliverable, nameless perils of the whale; these, with all the attending marvels of a thousand Patagonian sights and sounds, helped to sway me to my wish. With other men, perhaps, such things would not have been inducements; but as for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas, and land on barbarous coasts. Not ignoring what is good, I am quick to perceive a horror, and could still be social with it- would they let me- since it is but well to be on friendly terms with all the inmates of the place one lodges in.By reason of these things, then, the whaling voyage was welcome; the great flood-gates of the wonder-world swung open, and in the wild conceits that swayed me to my purpose, two and two there floated into my inmost soul, endless processions of the whale, and, mid most of them all, one grand hooded phantom, like a snow hill in the air.2.Read the following Sonnet by William Shakespeare (1564-1616), and write an analytical essay in about 250 words. (25 points)Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?Thou art more lovely and more temperate:Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,And Summer's lease hath all too short a date:Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;And every fair from fair sometime declines,By chance, or nature's changing course, untrimm'd:But thy eternal summer shall not fadeNor lose possession of that fair thou owest;Nor shall death brag thou wander'st in his shadeWhen in eternal lines to time thou growest:So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,So long lives this and this gives life to thee.。
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题357_英语翻译基础
357华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：英语翻译基础适用专业：英语笔译(专硕)共页I.Translate each of the following statements into Chinese (50):1.John saw the writing on the wall for the British car industry two decadesago.2.Without tools man is nothing, with tools, he is all.3.There is a mixture of the tiger and the ape in the character of Trump.4.Snow was treated very shabbily by the U.S. press and officialdom duringthis period, victimized for his views.5.Our journey has brought us halfway across northern China.6.I was, and remain, grateful for the part he played in my election.7.Rainbows are formed when sunlight passes through small drops of water inthe sky.8.Greenland is not a continent, as people thought.9.He was a bit of a dog in his younger days.10.It was another one of those Catch-22 situations, you’re damned if you doand you’re damned if you don’t.II.Translate each of the following statements into English (50):1. 我的脑海中为什么只有他的影子呢？2. 她性格内向、脾气不好，总是郁郁寡欢。
华南理工大学考研试题2016年-2018年211翻译硕士英语
211华南理工大学2016年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：翻译硕士英语适用专业：英语笔译(专业学位)211华南理工大学2017年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：翻译硕士英语适用专业：英语笔译（专硕）211华南理工大学2018年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：翻译硕士英语适用专业：英语笔译(专硕)A. People could explain well why they made their choices.B. Only a few of participants had choice blindness in making decision.C. Usually participants were aware of the limits of their skills.D. Most participants didn’t realize that their choices had been switched.44. Change blindness refers to the phenomenon that_________________.A. many people fail to notice the big change around themB. people tend to ignore the small changes in the surroundingsC. people’s choices can be easily interrupted by a big changeD. quite a few people do not have a good sense of directions45. What do researchers think is the drive for many everyday preferences?A. The haste judgment.B. The mechanism of self-feedback.C. The interaction with others.D. The expectation for the future.Passage fourRicky Gervais’s new film, The Invention of Lying, is about a world where lying doesn’t exist, which means that everybody tells the truth, and everybody believes everything everybody else says. “I’ve always hated you,”a man tells a work colleague. “He see ms nice, if a bit fat,” a woman says about her date. It’s all truth, all the time, at whatever the cost. Until one day, when Mark, a down-on-his-luck loser played by Gervais, discovers a thing called “lying” and what it can get him. Within days, Mark is rich, famous, and courting the girl of his dreams. And because nobody knows what “lying” is? he goes on, happily living what has become a complete and utter farce.It’s meant to be funny, but it’s also a more serious commentary on us all. As Americans, we like to think we value the truth. Time and time again, public-opinion polls show that honesty is among the top five characteristics we want in a leader, friend, or lover; the world is full of sad stories about the tragic consequences of betrayal. At the same time, deception is all around us. We are lied to by government officials and public figures to a disturbing degree; many of our social relationships are based on little white lies we tell each other. We deceive our children, only to be deceived by them in return. And the average person, says psychologist Robert Feldman, the author of a new book on lying, tells at least three lies in the first 10 minutes of a conversation. “There’s always been a lot of lying,” says Feldman，whose new book, The Liar in Your Life, came out this month. “But I do think we’re seeing a kind of cultural shift where we’re lying more, it’s easier to lie, and in some ways it’s almost more acceptable.”As Paul Ekman, one of Feldman’s longtime lying colleagues and the inspiration behind the Fox IV series “Lie To Me”defines it，a liar is a person who “intends tomislead,”“deliberately,”without being asked to do so by the target of the lie. Which doesn’t mean that all lies are equally toxic: some are simply habitual –“My pleasure!” -- while others might be well-meaning white lies. But each, Feldman argues, is harmful, because of the standard it creates. And the more lies we tell, even if they’re little white lies, the more deceptive we and society become.We are a culture of liars, to put it bluntly, with deceit so deeply ingrained in our mind that we hardly even notice we’re engaging in it. Junk e-mail, deceptive advertising, the everyday pleasantries we don’t really mean –“It’s so great to meet you! I love that dress”– have, as Feldman puts it, become “a white noise we’ve learned to neglect.” And Feldman also argues that cheating is more common today than ever. The Josephson Institute, a nonprofit focused on youth ethics, concluded in a 2008 survey of nearly 30,000 high school students that “cheating in school continues to be rampant, and it’s getting worse.” In that survey, 64 percent of students said they’d cheated on a test during the past year, up from 60 percent in 2006. Another recent survey, by Junior Achievement, revealed that more than a third of teens believe lying, cheating, or plagiarizing can be necessary to succeed, while a brand-new study, commissioned by the publishers of Feldman’s book, shows that 18-to 34-year-olds--- those of us fully reared in this lying culture --- deceive more frequently than the general population.Teaching us to lie is not the purpose of Feldman’s book. His subtitle, in fact, is “the way to truthful relationships.”But if his book teaches us anything, it’s that we should sharpen our skills — and use them with abandon.Liars get what they want. They avoid punishment, and they win others’ affection. Liars make themselves sound smart and intelligent, they attain power over those of us who believe them, and they often use their lies to rise up in the professional world. Many liars have fun doing it. And many more take pride in getting away with it.As Feldman notes, there is an evolutionary basis for deception: in the wild, animals use deception to “play dead” when threatened. But in the modem world, the motives of our lying are more selfish. Research has linked socially successful people to those who are good liars. Students who succeed academically get picked for the best colleges, despite the fact that, as one recent Duke University study found, as many as 90 percent of high-schoolers admit to cheating. Even lying adolescents are more popular among their peers.And all it takes is a quick flip of the remote to see how our public figures fare when they get caught in a lie: Clinton keeps his wife and goes on to become a national hero. Fabricating author James Frey gets a million-dollar book deal. Eliot Spitzer’s wi fe stands by his side, while “Appalachian hiker” Mark Sanford still gets to keep his post. If everyone else is being rewarded for lying，don’t we need to lie, too, just to keep up?But what’s funny is that even as we admit to being liars, study after study shows thatmost of us believe we can tell when others are lying to us. And while lying may be easy, spotting a liar is far from it. A nervous sweat or shifty eyes can certainly mean a person’s uncomfortable, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lying. Gaze aversion, meanwhile, has more to do with shyness than actual deception. Even polygraph machines are unreliable. And according to one study, by researcher Bella DePaulo, we’re only able to differentiate a lie from truth only 47 percent of the time, less than if we guessed randomly. “Basically everything we’ve heard about catching a liar is wrong,”says Feldman, who heads the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Ekman, meanwhile, has spent decades studying micro-facial expressions of liars: the split-second eyebrow arch that shows surprise when a spouse asks who was on the phone; the furrowed nose that gives away a hint of disgust when a person says “I love you.” He’s trained everyone from the Secret Service to the TSA, and believes that with close study, it’s possible to identify those tiny emotions. The hard part, of course, is proving them. “A lot of times, it’s easier to believe,” says Feldman. “It takes a lot of cognitive effort to think about whether someone is lying to us.”Which mea ns that more often than not, we’re like the poor dumb souls of The Invention of Lying, hanging on a liar’s every word, no matter how untruthful they may be.46. What do we know about Mark in the film The Invention of Lying?A. He looks too thin for his date.B. He is the most honest man.C. Lying changes his life completely.D. He lives in a lying world.47. According to Robert Feldman, the author of The Liar in Your Life, Americans now_____________________.A. regard the truth as very importantB. tend to lie more often than beforeC. start a conversation with three liesD. hate to be deceived by their children48. How does Robert Feldman see little white lies?A. They do harm to both people and the society.B. They are more acceptable than habitual lies.C. They are necessary in the social relationships.D. They are good-intentioned and thus harmless.49. The survey of the Josephson Institute revealed in 2008 that____________.A. most students passed the examinations by cheatingB. few students realized the harm of deceivingC. lying had become a habit of many studentsD. cheating was spreading unrestrainedly in schools。
华南理工大学2018年《359日语翻译基础》考研专业课真题试卷
問題 2．下記のものを中国語に訳しなさい。 （15×1 点＝15 点） 1．WHO 2．APEC
第
1 页
3．ダブルディグリー 4．二国間協定 5．小異を残して、大同につく 6．入学式 7．アジア競技大会 8．ストップ高 9．アレルギー 10．エコマーク 11．アカデミー賞 12．口車に乗る 13．手を焼く 14．目から鱗が落ちる 15．歯に衣を着せぬ
2．先生なしでは、上達は望めない。射撃隊のコーチの私は、ピアノについてはま ったくの門外漢だ。そこでレッスンの先生をお願いすることにした。毎週火曜と土 曜の夜、私と娘は一緒に先生のところへ行ってレッスンを受けた。娘の変わりにノ ートを取り、資料を録音した。演奏についての細かい注意事項を、娘の変わりに自 分の目でメモを取り、家に帰ってから、繰り返し娘に話して聞かせた。私は盲学校 に通って点字を覚え、名曲の楽譜をいくつかミンミンのために点訳した。私は娘に 言った。 「志ある者は必ず成功する。 」また、こうも言った。視力を失った盲人にと
359
华南理工大学 2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回） 科目名称：日语翻译基础 适用专业：日语笔译(专硕) 共 問題 1．下記のものを日本語に訳しなさい。 （15×1 点＝15 点） 1．取长补短 2．恐怖主义分子 3．双赢 4．半决赛 5．颁奖仪式 6．英才教育 7．经济软着陆 8．家庭影院 9．吸尘器 10．音乐会 11．鸡尾酒 12．一衣带水的邻国 13．以史为鉴，共创未来 14．己所不欲，勿施于人 15．近朱者赤近墨者黑 页
第
3
页
って、美しい旋律は、清らかな小川のせせらぎ、露に濡れた花、思う存分遊びわた むれる子鳥のようなものだ。芸術という殿堂に通ずる道は、まず第一歩から始めな くてはならない、と、私は、娘のために、心をこめて一枚の青写真を作り上げた。 ところが、ある日突然ピ題 3．下記の文章を日本語に訳しなさい。 （1×60 点＝60 点） 1．国立公园可以定义为这样一种区域，既推进对美丽的大自然和丰润的自然环境的 保护，又促使人们欣赏风景、与大自然亲密接触。为了保护风景和大自然，形成了这 样一种制度。即，如果要在国立公园境内修造建筑物，筑成人工土地等等时，需要取 得许可。即便在同一国立公园当中，保护方式也是有所侧重的。对于自然质量高，重 要或者说核心的部分，比如说就要提高许可标准，严格保护措施。另外，所谓国立公 园，是在人群聚居的国度里，还保存了大块自然的地区。正因为这样，最近人们对国 立公园在保护生物多样性中发挥的关键性作用寄予厚望。
华南理工大学448汉语写作与百科知识2014-2018年考研专业课真题试卷
14. 在“四大发明”中，____________是最早流行到国外的。
A. 造纸术 B. 活字印刷 C. 指南针
D. 火药
15. ____________在他的译文集《点滴》中说，它的这几篇译作有“两件特别的地方”，
其中一件便是“直译的文体”。
A. 鲁迅 B. 周作人
C. 林纾 D. 梁实秋
16. 道安在____________中，提出了著名的“五失本”、“三不易”的理论。
A. 《般若经》
B. 《摩诃钵罗若波罗蜜经钞序》
C. 《出三藏记集》
D. 《鞞婆沙序》
17. 先将梵文口译成汉语，讲出义旨，并拿出旧译本来对照，经过详细讨论，写成初
稿，还要以“论”证“经”，再作修改。此译经过程讲的是：____________。
A. 支谦 B. 玄奘 C. 鸠摩罗什 D. 道安
18. 巴斯内特提出的翻译学基本内容不包括：____________。
精都教育——全国 100000 考生的选择
我们的梦想，为成就更多人的梦想
华 南 理 工 大 学 研 究 生 入 学 考 试 试 题
原版考研真题试卷
更多考研真题、笔记、模拟、题库、讲义资料就上精都考研网 /
华南理工大学2018年考研专业课真题试卷（原版）
448 华南理工大学
2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
科目名称：汉语写作与百科知识 适用专业：英语笔译(专硕)；日语笔译(专硕)
共页
一、名词解释 10%（每小题 2 分）
1. 诗经：
2. 吴敬梓《儒林外史》：
3. 张爱玲：
4. 支谦：
第 1页
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题211_翻译硕士英语
211华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：翻译硕士英语适用专业：英语笔译(专硕)Part II Reading Comprehension (40 points, 2 points for each)Directions: In this section, there are 4 passages followed by multiple-choice questions. Read the passage and then write ONE best answer for each question on your ANSWER SHEET.Passage OneJust over a decade into the 21st century, women’s progress can be celebrated across a range of fields. They hold the highest political offices from Thailand to Brazil, Costa Rica to Australia. A woman holds the top spot at the International Monetary Fund; another won the Nobel Prize in economics. Self-made billionaires in Beijing, tech innovators in Silicon Valley, pioneering justices in Ghana—in these and countless other areas, women are leaving their mark.But hold the applause. In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t allowed to drive. In Pakistan, 1,000women die in honor killings every year. In the developed world, women lag behind men in pay and political power. The poverty rate among women in the U.S. rose to 14.5% last year.To measure the state of women’s progress. Newsweek ranked 165 countries, looking at five areas that affect wome n’s lives; treatment under the law, workforce participation, political power, and access to education and health care. Analyzing data from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, among others, and consulting with experts and academics, we measured 28 factors to come up with our rankings.Countries with the highest scores tend to be clustered in the West, where gender discrimination is against the law, and equal rights are constitutionally enshrined. But there were some surprises. Some otherwise high-ranking countries had relatively low scores for political representation. Canada ranked third overall but 26th in power, behind countries such as Cuba and Burundi. Does this suggest that a woman in a nation’s top office translates to better lives for women in general? Not exactly.“Trying to quantify or measure the impact of women in politics is hard because in very few countries have there been enough women in politics to make a difference,” says Anne-Marie Goetz, peace and security adviser for U.N. Women.Of course, no index can account for everything. Declaring that one country is better than another in the way that it treats more than half its citizens means relying on broad strokes and generalities. Some things simply can’t be measured. And cross-cultural comparisons can t account for difference of opinion.Certain conclusions are nonetheless clear. For one thing, our index backs up a simple but profound statement made by Hillary Clinton at the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. “When we l iberate the economic potential of women, we elevate the economic performance of communities, nations, and the world,” she said. “There’s a simulative effect that kicks in when women have greater access to jobs and the economiclives of our countries: Greater political stability. Fewer military conflicts. More food. More educational opportunity for children. By harnessing the economic potential of all women, we boost opportunity for all people.”31.What does the author think about women’s progress so far?A.It still leaves much to be desired.B.It is too remarkable to be measured.C.It has greatly changed women’s fate.D.It is achieved through hard struggle.32.In what countries have women made the greatest progress?A.Where women hold key posts in government.B.Where women’s rights are protected by law.C.Where women’s participation in management is high.D.Where women enjoy better education and health care.33.What do Newsweek rankings reveal about women in Canada?A.They care little about political participation.B.They are generally treated as equals by men.C.They have a surprisingly low social status.D.They are underrepresented in politics.34.What does Anne-Marie Goetz think of a woman being in a nation’s top office?A.It does not necessarily raise women's political awareness.B.It does not guarantee a better life for the nation's women.C.It enhances women's status.D.It boosts women's confidence.35.What does Hillary Clinton suggest we do to make the world a better place?A.Give women more political power.B.Stimulate women's creativity.C.Allow women access to education.D.Tap women's economic potential.Passage TwoThe idea that government should regulate intellectual property through copyrights and patents is relatively recent in human history, and the precise details of what intellectual property is protected for how long vary across nations and occasionally change. There are two standard sociological justifications for patents or copyrights: They reward creators for their labor, and they encourage greater creativity. Both of these are empirical claims that can be tested scientifically and could be false in some realms.Consider music. Star performers existed before the 20th century, such as Franz Liszt and Niccolo Paganini, but mass media produced a celebrity system promoting a few starsidentified by psychologists where a remarkably large number of people fail to spot a major change in their environment. Recall the famous experiments where X asks Y for directions; while Y is struggling to help, X is switched for Z - and. Y fails to notice. Researchers are still pondering the full implications, but it does show how little information we use in daily life, and undermines the idea that we know what is going on around us.When we set out, we aimed to weigh in on the enduring, complicated debate about self-knowledge and intentionality. For all the intimate familiarity we feel we have with decision making, it is very difficult to know about it from the “inside”: one of the great barriers for scientific research is the nature of subjectivity.As anyone who has ever been in a verbal disagreement can prove, people tend to give elaborate justifications for their decisions, which we have every reason to believe are nothing more than rationalizations after the event. To prove such people wrong, though, or even provide enough evidence to change their mind, is an entirely different matter: who are you to say what my reasons are?But with choice blindness we drive a large wedge between intentions and actions in the mind. As our participants give us verbal explanations about choices they never made, we can show them beyond doubt - and prove it - that what they say cannot be true. So our experiments offer a unique window into confabulation (the story-telling we do to justify things after the fact) that is otherwise very difficult to come by. We can compare everyday explanations with those under lab conditions, looking for such things as the amount of detail in descriptions, how coherent the narrative is, the emotional tone, or even the timing or flow of the speech. Then we can create a theoretical framework to analyse any kind of exchange.This framework could provide a clinical use for choice blindness: for example, two of our ongoing studies examine how malingering might develop into true symptoms, and how confabulation might play a role in obsessive-compulsive disorder.Importantly, the effects of choice blindness go beyond snap judgments. Depending on what our volunteers say in response to the mismatched outcomes of choices (whether they give short or long explanations, give numerical rating or labelling, and so on) we found this interaction could change their future preferences to the extent that they come to prefer the previously rejected alternative. This gives us a rare glimpse into the complicated dynamics of self-feedback (“I chose this, I publicly said so, therefore I must like it”), which we suspect lies behind the formation of many everyday preferences.We also want to explore the boundaries of choice blindness. Of course, it will be limited by choices we know to be of great importance in everyday life. Which bride or bridegroom would fail to notice if someone switched their partner at the altar through amazing sleight of hand? Yet there is ample territory between the absurd idea of spouse-swapping, and the results of our early face experiments.For example, in one recent study we invited supermarket customers to choose between two paired varieties of jam and tea. In order to switch each participant’s choice without them noticing, we created two sets of “magical” jars, with lids at both ends and a divider inside. The jars looked normal, but were designed to hold one variety of jam or tea at each end, and could easily be flipped over.Immediately after the participants chose, we asked them to taste their choice again and tell us verbally why they made that choice. Before they did, we turned over the sample containers, so the tasters were given the opposite of what they had intended in their selection. Strikingly, people detected no more than a third of all these trick trials. Even when we switched such remarkably different flavors as spicy cinnamon and apple for bitter grapefruit jam, the participants spotted less than half of all switches.We have also documented this kind of effect when we simulate online shopping for consumer products such as laptops or cellphones, and even apartments. Our latest tests are exploring moral and political decisions, a domain where reflection and deliberation are supposed to play a central role, but which we believe is perfectly suited to investigating using choice blindness.Throughout our experiments, as well as registering whether our volunteers noticed that they had been presented with the alternative they did not choose, we also quizzed them about their beliefs about their decision processes. How did they think they would feel if they had been exposed to a study like ours? Did they think they would have noticed the switches? Consistently, between 80 and 90 per cent of people said that they believed they would have noticed something was wrong.Imagine their surprise, even disbelief, when we told them about the nature of the experiments. In everyday decision-making we do see ourselves as knowing a lot about ourselves, but like the wine buff or art critic, we often overstate what we know. The good news is that this form of decision snobbery should not be too difficult to treat. Indeed, after reading this article you might already be cured.41.What does the author say about some experts?A.They are authorities only in their own fields.B.They aren’t easily fooled by the tricky tests.C.The mistakes they’ve made are inevitable.D.They sometimes fail to do well as claimed.42.What did the researchers do to participants in the experiments?A.They put on a magic performance to the participants.B.They diverted the participants’ attention and disrupted their choosing.C.They changed the things participants chose without their noticing.D.They added confusion to the two options the participants faced.43.What does the result of the face choosing experiments reveal?mislead,”“deliberately,”without being asked to do so by the target of the lie. Which doesn’t mean that all lies are equally toxic: some are simply habitual –“My pleasure!” -- while others might be well-meaning white lies. But each, Feldman argues, is harmful, because of the standard it creates. And the more lies we tell, even if they’re little white lies, the more deceptive we and society become.We are a culture of liars, to put it bluntly, with deceit so deeply ingrained in our mind that we hardly even notice we’re engaging in it. Junk e-mail, deceptive advertising, the everyday pleasantries we don’t really mean –“It’s so great to meet you! I love that dress”– have, as Feldman puts it, become “a white noise we’ve learned to neglect.” And Feldman also argues that cheating is more common today than ever. The Josephson Institute, a nonprofit focused on youth ethics, concluded in a 2008 survey of nearly 30,000 high school students that “cheating in school continues to be rampant, and it’s getting worse.” In that survey, 64 percent of students said they’d cheated on a test during the past year, up from 60 percent in 2006. Another recent survey, by Junior Achievement, revealed that more than a third of teens believe lying, cheating, or plagiarizing can be necessary to succeed, while a brand-new study, commissioned by the publishers of Feldman’s book, shows that 18-to 34-year-olds--- those of us fully reared in this lying culture --- deceive more frequently than the general population.Teaching us to lie is not the purpose of Feldman’s book. His subtitle, in fact, is “the way to truthful relationships.” But if his book teaches us anything, it’s that we should sharpen our skills — and use them with abandon.Liars get what they want. They avoid punishment, and they win others’affection. Liars make themselves sound smart and intelligent, they attain power over those of us who believe them, and they often use their lies to rise up in the professional world. Many liars have fun doing it. And many more take pride in getting away with it.As Feldman notes, there is an evolutionary basis for deception: in the wild, animals use deception to “play dead” when threatened. But in the modem world, the motives of our lying are more selfish. Research has linked socially successful people to those who are good liars. Students who succeed academically get picked for the best colleges, despite the fact that, as one recent Duke University study found, as many as 90 percent of high-schoolers admit to cheating. Even lying adolescents are more popular among their peers.And all it takes is a quick flip of the remote to see how our public figures fare when they get caught in a lie: Clinton keeps his wife and goes on to become a national hero. Fabricating author James Frey gets a million-dollar book deal. Eliot Spitzer’s wife stands by his side, while “Appalachian hiker” Mark Sanford still gets to keep his post. If everyone else is being rewarded for lying，don’t we need to lie, too, just to keep up?But what’s funny is that even as we admit to being liars, study after study shows that50.What did the survey of Junior Achievement show about the teenagers?A.Quite a few of them believe that cheating is genetic.B.Many of them see deceiving as essential for success.C.Cheating occurs more commonly among them.D.They are the victims of the lying culture in fact.Part III Writing (30 points)51.Security cameras are very popular in our life these days. Some people believe that security cameras are in place to protect both businesses and the general public, but others argue that cameras have gone too far and actually invade privacy because people are constantly under surveillance. Write an essay of at least 400 words in English with the title listed below on the ANSWER SHEET.Are security cameras an invasion of privacy?。
华南理工大学2018年硕士研究生招生考试初试试卷--电路原理
第 2 页R21 1uR1，8188’？华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷四、如图四所示电路，己知电源电流毛＝10cosl04t A, R1 ＝乓＝10Q , C = Sµ F ，求电压U ，并 写出U 的瞬时表达式。
(1 5 分〉（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回） 科目名称：电路原理适用专业：电气工程（专硕）共 4 页十一、用叠加原理求图一所示电路中电压u 。
(1 5 分）sn10n＋图四五、用回路电流法求解图五所示电路中电流I 。
ClS 分）图一二、电路如图二所示，试求输出电压Uo 与输入电压U1之间关系的表达式。
（15 分）Ru,200图五六、用结点电压法求解图六所示电路中电压U 。
（15 分）图二三、求图三所示电路在a 、b 端口的戴维宁和诺顿等效电路。
（15 分〉10n40sn＋＋asov151b图六＋136Vv ，、nu w＋ 、页匪一l第＋3V 201 I 0.5IL＋Uc lH UL七、图七所示电路中，（；2 = 200L0°V，乓＝6Q , XLI = 8Q，几＝1飞＝X L2 =Xe =lOQ,求(1)j，。
：（2）电路的功率因数λ：（3）电路的无功功率Q。
(15分）十、对称三相电路如图所示，相电压有效值为220V ，连接了一个对称三柏负载，负载线电流为l OA，功率因数为0.6 C 滞后），问：需并联无功功率为多少的对称容性负载才能使功率因数为1? ( 15 分）zAjXcr T图七BC；去京｜zN'z｜去八、图八所示电路在开关S打开前已稳定，t=O时S打开，求色0 时电压u(t）。
（15分）In s60图八九、图九所示电路中，己知Us =lOOV, R1 = l O Q，乓＝乓＝20Q ，开关S 闭合前电1 工J图十路处于稳态，t=O时开关S闭合，试求1i(0＋）及乌（O＋）。
C15分）十图九R1R2UsCi I第 3 页第 4 页。
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题626_英语综合水平测试
626华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：英语综合水平测试适用专业：外国语言文学performances. Rather than playing tricks with alternatives presented to participants, we secretly altered the outcomes of their choices, and recorded how they react. For example, in an early study we showed our volunteers pairs of pictures of faces and asked them to choose the most attractive. In some trials, immediately after they made their choice, we asked people to explain the reasons behind their choices.Unknown to them, we sometimes used a double-card magic trick to secretly exchange one face for the other so they ended up with the face they did not choose. Common sense dictates that all of us would notice such a big change in the outcome of a choice. But the result showed that in 75 per cent of the trials our participants were blind to the mismatch, even offering “reasons” for their“choice”.We called this effect “choice blindness”, echoing change blindness,the phenomenon identified by psychologists where a remarkably large number of people fail to spot a major change in their environment. Recall the famous experiments where X asks Y for directions; while Y is struggling to help, X is switched for Z - and. Y fails to notice. Researchers are still pondering the full implications, but it does show how little information we use in daily life, and undermines the idea that we know what is going on around us.When we set out, we aimed to weigh in on the enduring, complicated debate about self-knowledge and intentionality. For all the intimate familiarity we feel we have with decision making, it is very difficult to know about it from the “inside”: one of the great barriers for scientific research is the nature of s ubjectivity.As anyone who has ever been in a verbal disagreement can prove, people tend to give elaborate justifications for their decisions, which we have every reason to believe are nothing more than rationalizations after the event. To prove such people wrong, though, or even provide enough evidence to change their mind, is an entirely different matter: who are you to say what my reasons are?But with choice blindness we drive a large wedge between intentions and actions in the mind. As our participants give us verbal explanations about choices they never made, we can show them beyond doubt - and prove it - that what they say cannot be true. So our experiments offer a unique window into confabulation (the story-telling we do to justify things after the fact) that is otherwise very difficult to come by. We can compare everyday explanations with those under lab conditions, looking for such things as the amount of detail in descriptions, how coherent the narrative is, the emotional tone, or even the timing or flow of the speech. Then we can create a theoretical framework to analyse any kind of exchange.This framework could provide a clinical use for choice blindness: for example, two of our ongoing studies examine how malingering might develop into truesymptoms, and how confabulation might play a role in obsessive-compulsive disorder.Importantly, the effects of choice blindness go beyond snap judgments. Depending on what our volunteers say in response to the mismatched outcomes of choices (whether they give short or long explanations, give numerical rating or labeling, and so on) we found this interaction could change their future preferences to the extent that they come to prefer the previously rejected alternative. This gives us a rare glimpse into the complicated dynamics of self-feedback (“I chose this, I publicly said so, therefore I must like it”), which we suspect lies behind the formation of many everyday preferences.We also want to explore the boundaries of choice blindness. Of course, it will be limited by choices we know to be of great importance in everyday life. Which bride or bridegroom would fail to notice if someone switched their partner at the altar through amazing sleight of hand? Yet there is ample territory between the absurd idea of spouse-swapping, and the results of our early face experiments.For example, in one recent study we invited supermarket customers to choose between two paired varieties of jam and tea. In order to switch each participant’s choice without them noticing, we created two sets of “magical” jars, with lids at both ends and a divider inside. The jars looked normal, but were designed to hold one variety of jam or tea at each end, and could easily be flipped over.Immediately after the participants chose, we asked them to taste their choice again and tell us verbally why they made that choice. Before they did, we turned over the sample containers, so the tasters were given the opposite of what they had intended in their selection. Strikingly, people detected no more than a third of all these trick trials. Even when we switched such remarkably different flavors as spicy cinnamon and apple for bitter grapefruit jam, the participants spotted less than half of all s witches.We have also documented this kind of effect when we simulate online shopping for consumer products such as laptops or cell phones, and even apartments. Our latest tests are exploring moral and political decisions, a domain where reflection and deliberation are supposed to play a central role, but which we believe is perfectly suited to investigating using choice blindness.Throughout our experiments, as well as registering whether our volunteers noticed that they had been presented with the alternative they did not choose, we also quizzed them about their beliefs about their decision processes. How did they think they would feel if they had been exposed to a study like ours? Did they think they would have noticed the switches? Consistently, between 80 and 90 per cent of people said that they believed they would have noticed something was wrong.Gervais, discovers a thing called “lying” and what it can get him. Within days, M ark is rich, famous, and courting the girl of his dreams. And because nobody knows what “lying” is? he goes on, happily living what has become a complete and utter farce.It’s meant to be funny, but it’s also a more serious commentary on us all. As Americans, we like to think we value the truth. Time and time again, public-opinion polls show that honesty is among the top five characteristics we want in a leader, friend, or lover; the world is full of sad stories about the tragic consequences of betrayal. At the same time, deception is all around us. We are lied to by government officials and public figures to a disturbing degree; many of our social relationships are based on little white lies we tell each other. We deceive our children, only to be deceived by them in return. And the average person, says psychologist Robert Feldman, the author of a new book on lying, tells at least three lies in the first 10 minutes of a conversation. “There’s always been a lot of lying,” says Feldman，whose new book, The Liar in Your Life, came out this month. “But I do think we’re seeing a kind of cultural shift where we’re lying more, it’s easier to lie, and in some ways it’s almost more acceptable.”As Paul Ekman, one of Feldman’s longtime lying colleagues and the inspiration behind the Fox IV series “Lie To Me” defines it，a liar is a person who “intends to mislead,”“deliberately,” without being asked to do so by the target of the lie. Which doesn’t mean that all lies are equally toxic: some are simply habitual –“My pleasure!”-- while others might be well-meaning white lies. But each, Feldman argues, is harmful, because of the standard it creates. And the more lies we tell, even if th ey’re little white lies, the more deceptive we and society become.We are a culture of liars, to put it bluntly, with deceit so deeply ingrained in our mind that we hardly even notice we’re engaging in it. Junk e-mail, deceptive advertising, the everyday p leasantries we don’t really mean –“It’s so great to meet you! I love that dress”– have, as Feldman puts it, become “a white noise we’ve learned to neglect.” And Feldman also argues that cheating is more common today than ever. The Josephson Institute, a nonprofit focused on youth ethics, concluded in a 2008 survey of nearly 30,000 high school students that “cheating in school continues to be rampant, and it’s getting worse.” In that survey, 64 percent of students said they’d cheated on a test during the past year, up from 60 percent in 2006. Another recent survey, by Junior Achievement, revealed that more than a third of teens believe lying, cheating, or plagiarizing can be necessary to succeed, while a brand-new study, commissioned by the publishers of Feldman’s book, shows that 18-to 34-year-olds--- those of us fully reared in this lying culture --- deceive more frequently than the general population.Teaching us to lie is not the purpose of Feldman’s book. His subtitle, in fact, is “the way to truthful relationships.” But if his book teaches us anything, it’s that we should sharpen our skills — and use them with abandon.Liars get what they want. They avoid punishment, and they win others’ affection. Liars make themselves sound smart and intelligent, they attain power over those of us who believe them, and they often use their lies to rise up in the professional world. Many liars have fun doing it. And many more take pride in getting away with it.As Feldman notes, there is an evolutionary basis for deception: in the wild, animals use deception to “play dead” when threatened. But in the modem world, the motives of our lying are more selfish. Research has linked socially successful people to those who are good liars. Students who succeed academically get picked for the best colleges, despite the fact that, as one recent Duke University study found, as many as 90 percent of high-schoolers admit to cheating. Even lying adolescents are more popular among their peers.And all it takes is a quick flip of the remote to see how our public figures fare when they get caught in a lie: Clinton keeps his wife and goes on to become a national hero. Fabricating author James Frey gets a million-dollar book deal. Eliot Spitzer’s wife stands by his side, while “Appalachian hiker” Mark Sanford still gets to keep his post. If everyone else is being rewarded for lying，don’t we need to lie, too, just to keep up?But what’s funny is that even as we admit to being liars, study after study shows that most of us believe we can tell when others are lying to us. And while lying may be easy, spotting a liar is far from it. A nervous sweat or shifty eyes can certainly mean a person’s uncomfortable, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lying. Gaze aversion, meanwhile, has more to do with shyness than actual deception. Even polygraph machines are unreliable. And according to one study, by researcher Bella DePaulo, we’re only able to differentiate a lie from truth only 47 percent of the time, less than if we guessed randomly. “Basically everything we’ve heard about catching a liar is wrong,” says Feldman, who heads the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Ekman, meanwhile, has spent decades studying micro-facial expressions of liars: the split-second eyebrow arch that shows surprise when a spouse asks who was on the phone; the furrowed nose that gives away a hint of disgust when a person says “I love you.” He’s trained everyone from the Secret Service to the TSA, and believes that with close study, it’s possible to identify those tiny emotions. The hard part, of course, is proving them. “A lot of times, it’s easier to believe,” says Feldman. “It takes a lot ofThere were, however, different explanations of this unhappy fact. Sean Pidgeon put the blame on “humanities departments who are responsible for the leftist politics that still turn people off.” Kedar Kulkarni blamed “the absence of a culture that privileges Learning to improve oneself as a human being.” Bethany blamed universities, which because they are obsessed with “maintaining funding” default on th e obligation to produce “well rounded citizens.” Matthew blamed no one，because i n his view the report’s priorities are just what they should be: “When a poet creates a vaccine or a tangible good that can be produced by a Fortune 500 company, I’ll rescind my comment.”Although none of these commentators uses the word, the issue they implicitly raise is justification. How does one justify funding the arts and humanities? It is clear which justifications are not available. You cannot argue that the arts and humanities are able to support themselves through grants and private donations. You cannot argue that a state’s economy will benefit by a new reading of “Hamlet.” You can’t argue -- well you can, but it won’t fly -- that a graduate who is well-versed in the history of Byzantine art will be attractive to employers (unless the employer is a museum). You can talk as Bethany does about “well rounded citizens,” but that ideal belongs to an earlier period, when the ability to refer knowledgeably to Shakespeare or Gibbon or the Thirty Years War had some cash value (the sociologists call it cultural capital). Nowadays, larding your conversations with small bits of erudition is more likely to irritate than to win friends and influence people.At one time justification of the arts and humanities was unnecessary because, as Anthony Kronman puts it in a new book, “Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life，” it was assumed that “a college was above all a place for the training of character, for the nurturing of those intellectual and moral habits that together from the basis for living the best life one can.”It followed that the realization of this goal required an immersion in the great texts of literature, philosophy and history even to the extent of memorizing them, for “to acquire a text by memory is to fix in one’s mind the image and example of the author and his subject.”It is to a version of this old ideal that Kronman would have us return, not because of a professional investment in the humanities (he is a professor of law and a former dean of the Yale Law School), but because he believes that only the humanities can address “the crisis of spirit we now confront” and “restore the wonder which those who have glimpsed the human condition have always felt, and which our scientific civilization, with its gadgets and discoveries, obscures.”As this last quotation makes clear, Kronman is not so much mounting a defense ofthe humanities as he is mounting an attack on everything else. Other spokespersons for the humanities argue for their utility by connecting them (in largely unconvincing ways) to the goals of science, technology and the building of careers. Kronman, however, identifies science, technology and careerism as impediments to living a life with meaning. The real enemies, he declares，are “the careerism that distracts from life as a whole” and “the blind acceptance of science and technology that disguise and deny our human condition.” These false idols，he says，block the way to understanding. We must turn to the humanities if we are to “meet the need for meaning in an age of vast but pointless powers,”for only the humanities can help us recover the urgency of “the question of what living is for.”The humanities do this, Kronman explains, by exposing students to “a range of texts that express with matchless power a number of competing answers to this question.” In the course of this program —Kronman calls it “secular humanism”—students will be moved “to consider which alternatives lie closest to their own evolving sense of self?” As they survey “the different ways of living that have been held up by different authors,” they will be encouraged “to enter as deeply as they can into the experiences, ideas, and values that give each its permanent appeal.” And not only would such a “revitalized humanism” contribute to the growth of the self,it “would put the conventional pieties of our moral and political world in question” and “bring what is hidden into the open — the highest goal of the humanities and the first responsibility of every teache r.”Here then is a justification of the humanities that is neither strained (reading poetry contributes to the state’s bottom line) nor crassly careerist. It is a stirring vision that promises the highest reward to those who respond to it. Entering into a conversation with the great authors of the western tradition holds out the prospect of experiencing “a kind of immortality” and achieving “a position immune to the corrupting powers of time.”Sounds great, but I have my doubts. Does it really work that way? Do the humanities ennoble? And for that matter, is it the business of the humanities, or of any other area of academic study, to save us?The answer in both cases, I think, is no. The premise of secular humanism (or of just old-fashioned humanism) is that the examples of action and thought portrayed in the enduring works of literature, philosophy and history can create in readers the desire to emulate them. Philip Sydney put it as well as anyone ever has when he asks (in “The Defense of Poesy” 1595), “Who reads Aeneas carrying old Anchises on his back that wishes not it was his fortune to perform such an excellent act?” Thrill to this picture of42.What does Anthony Kronman oppose in the process to strive for meaningful life?A.Secular humanism.B. Careerism.C. Revitalized humanismD. Cultural capital.43.Which of the following is NOT mentioned in this article?A.Sidney Carton killed himself.B.A new reading of Hamlet may not benefit economy.C.Faust was not willing to sell his soul.D.Philip Sydney wrote The Defense of Poesy.44.Which is NOT true about the author?A.At the time of writing, he has been in the field of the humanities for 45 years.B.He thinks the humanities are supposed to save at least those who study them.C.He thinks teachers and students of the humanities just learn how to analyze literary effects and to distinguish between different accounts of the foundations of knowledge.D.He thin ks Kronman’s remarks compromise the object its supposed praise.45.Which statement could best summarize this article?A.The arts and humanities fail to produce well-rounded citizens.B.The humanities won’t save us because humanities departments are too leftist.C.The humanities are expected to train character and nurture those intellectual andmoral habits for living a life with meaning.D.The humanities don’t bring about effects in the world but just give pleasure to those who enjoy them.Passage fourJust over a decade into the 21st century, women’s progress can be celebrated across a range of fields. They hold the highest political offices from Thailand to Brazil, Costa Rica to Australia. A woman holds the top spot at the International Monetary Fund; another won the Nobel Prize in economics. Self-made billionaires in Beijing, tech innovators in Silicon Valley, pioneering justices in Ghana—in these and countless other areas, women are leaving their mark.But hold the applause. In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t allowed to drive. In Pakistan, 1,000 women die in honor killings every year. In the developed world, women lag behind men in pay and political power. The poverty rate among women in the U.S. rose to 14.5% last year.To measure the state of women’s progress. Newsweek ranked 165countries, looking at five areas that affect women’s lives; treatment under the law, workforce participation, political power, and access to education and health care. Analyzing datafrom the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, among others, and consulting with experts and academics, we measured 28 factors to come up with our rankings.Countries with the highest scores tend to be clustered in the West, where gender discrimination is against the law, and equal rights are constitutionally enshrined. But there were some surprises. Some otherwise high-ranking countries had relatively low scores for political representation. Canada ranked third overall but 26th in power, behind countries such as Cuba and Burundi. Does this suggest that a woman in a nation’s top office translates to better lives for women in general? Not exactly.“Trying to quantify or measure the impact of women in politics is hard because in very few countries have there been enough women in politics to make a difference,” says Anne-Marie Goetz, peace and security adviser for U.N. Women.Of course, no index can account for everything. Declaring that one country is better than another in the way that it treats more than half its citizens means relying on broad strokes and generalities. Some things simply can’t be measured.And cross-cultural comparisons can t account for difference of opinion.Certain conclusions are nonetheless clear. For one thing, our index backs up a simple but profound statement made by Hillary Clinton at the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. “When we liberate the economic potential of women, we elevate the economic performance of communities, nations, and the world,”she said. “There’s a simulative effect that kicks in when women have greater access to jobs and the economic lives of our countries: Greater political stability. Fewer military conflicts. More food. More educational opportunity for children. By harnessing the economic potential of all women, we boost opportunity for all people.”46.What does the author think about women’s progress so far?A.It still leaves much to be desired.B.It is too remarkable to be measured.C.It has greatly changed women's fate.D.It is achieved through hard struggle.47.In what countries have women made the greatest progress?A.Where women hold key posts in government.B.Where women’s rights are protected by law.C.Where women’s participation in management is high.D.Where women enjoy better education and health care.48.What do Newsweek rankings reveal about women in Canada?A.They care little about political participation.B.They are generally treated as equals by men.C.They have a surprisingly low social status.D.They are underrepresented in politics.49.What does Anne-Marie Goetz think of a woman being in a nation's top office?A.It does not necessarily raise women's political awareness.B.It does not guarantee a better life for the nation's women.C.It enhances women's status.D.It boosts women's confidence.50.What does Hillary Clinton suggest we do to make the world a better place?A.Give women more political power.B.Stimulate women's creativity.C.Allow women access to education.D.Tap women's economic potential.Passage fiveThe idea that government should regulate intellectual property through copyrights and patents is relatively recent in human history, and the precise details of what intellectual property is protected for how long vary across nations and occasionally change. There are two standard sociological justifications for patents or copyrights: They reward creators for their labor, and they encourage greater creativity. Both of these are empirical claims that can be tested scientifically and could be false in some realms.Consider music. Star performers existed before the 20th century, such as Franz Liszt and Niccolo Paganini, but mass media produced a celebrity system promoting a few stars whose music was not necessarily the best or most diverse. Copyright provides protection for distribution companies and for a few celebrities, thereby helping to support the industry as currently defined, but it may actually harm the majority of performers. This is comparable to Anatole France's famous irony, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges." In theory, copyright covers the creations of celebrities and obscurities equally, but only major distribution companies have the resources to defend their property rights in court. In a sense, this is quite fair, because nobody wants to steal unpopular music, but by supporting the property rights of celebrities, copyright strengthens them as a class in contrast to anonymous musicians.Internet music file sharing has become a significant factor in the social lives of children, who download bootleg music tracks for their own use and to give as gifts to friends. If we are to believe one recent poll done by a marketing firm rather than social。
华南理工大学_359日语翻译基础2015--2017年_考研真题
359
华南理工大学
2015年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
科目名称：日语翻译基础
适用专业：日语笔译(专业学位)
共2页問題一．次の日本語の単語を中国語に訳しなさい。
（1点×15＝15点）
1.WHO
2.FTA
3.IMF
4.WIN-WIN関係
5.ディスカウントショップ
6.ショートメッセージ
7.ブランド商品
8.オンライン取引
9.一堂に会す
10.関税障壁
11.山に千年、海に千年
12.耳が早い
13.風を食う
14.良薬は口に苦し
15.人材が輩出する
問題二．次の中国語の単語を日本語に訳しなさい。
（1点×15＝15点）
1.经济软着陆
2.关贸总协定
3.臭氧层
4.高清
5.移动办公
6.讲义大纲
7.英才教育
8.小康社会
9.中日邦交正常化
10.世界锦标赛
11.无风不起浪
12.渔翁之利
13.开动脑筋
14.百闻不如一见
15.以毒攻毒
第1页。
华南理工大学《359日语翻译基础》考研专业课真题试卷
海天课堂
中国考研专业课辅导知名品牌
华南理工大学Biblioteka 研专业课真题试卷359 日语翻译基础
2015 年《359 日语翻译基础》专业课真题试卷 2016 年《359 日语翻译基础》专业课真题试卷 2017 年《359 日语翻译基础》专业课真题试卷 2018 年《359 日语翻译基础》专业课真题试卷
359
华南理工大学 2015 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
第
2
页
359
华南理工大学 2016 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回） 科目名称：日语翻译基础 适用专业：日语笔译(专业学位) 共 4 页 問題一．次の日本語の単語を中国語に訳しなさい。 （１点×15＝15 点） １．おにぎり ２．宛先 ３．実名制 ４．ただ食い ５．共同購入 ６．調印 ７．下請け ８．アフターサービス ９．通関申告書 １０． タイミング １１． エコライフ １２． 言わぬが花 １３． 腐っても鯛 １４． 三人寄れば文殊の知恵 １５． 住宅ローンで首が回らない人 問題二．次の中国語の単語を日本語に訳しなさい。 （１点×15＝15 点） １．代驾 ２．小长假 ３．富二代 ４．紫外线指数 ５．热狗 ６．不均衡 ７．烤箱 ８．召回 ９．通货膨胀 １０． 半途而废 １１． 彩信 １２． 高尔夫球场 １３． 剩女
2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题448_汉语写作与百科知识
A.“重神似不重形似；译文必须为纯粹之中文
B.“翻译于用之外，还有美一方面须兼顾的，理想的翻译家应当将其作为一种艺术
C.译笔要求“行文流畅，用字丰富，色彩变化”
D.强调译者本身的条件、气质对于原作的“适应力”
14.在“四大发明”中，是最早流行到国外的。
A.造纸术B.活字印刷C.指南针D.火药
15.在他的译文集《点滴》中说，它的这几篇译作有“两件特别的地方”，其中一件便是“直译的文体”。
A.鲁迅B.周作人C.林纾D.梁实秋
16.道安在中，提出了著名的“五失本”、“三不易”的理论。
A.《般若经》B.《摩诃钵罗若波罗蜜经钞序》
C.《出三藏记集》D.《鞞婆沙序》
17.先将梵文口译成汉语，讲出义旨，并拿出旧译本来对照，经过详细讨论，写成初稿，还要以“论”证“经”，再作修改。此译经过程讲的是：。
A.支谦B.玄奘C.鸠摩罗什D.道安
18.巴斯内特提出的翻译学基本内容不包括：。
A.翻译史研究B.目的语文化中的翻译研究
C.翻译与文艺学研究D.翻译与诗学研究
19.多元系统理论的来源不包括：。
10.《译者的隐身》作者是。
A.韦努蒂B.巴巴C.赛义德D.弗洛托
11.佛经翻译在“文”、“质”之争外，还进而讨论了译名（名实）问题。其代表论争者是。
A.僧睿B.佛图澄C.释道安D.慧远
12.30年代中，林语堂对翻译理论作出了极大的贡献，关于翻译的“忠实标准”，以下哪一选项不是他的观点？。
A.须通顺B.须传神C.非字译D.非绝对
A.赫曼斯的操纵理论B.俄国形式主义文学理论
C.索绪尔的结构语言理论D.列维、米科等捷克学者的理论
2016-2018年华南理工大学448汉语写作与百科知识硕士研究生入学考试题
448
华南理工大学
2018年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
科目名称：汉语写作与百科知识
适用专业：英语笔译(专硕)；日语笔译(专硕)
448
华南理工大学
2017年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
科目名称：汉语写作与百科知识
适用专业：英语笔译（专硕）；日语笔译（专硕）
448
华南理工大学
2016年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
科目名称：汉语写作与百科知识
适用专业：英语笔译(专业学位)；日语笔译(专业学位)。