新闻专业英语》模拟卷

19.

C. Fleet Street—英国新闻界 ) ( )

D.China Town—唐宁街 ( ) 9.Pearl harbor incident took place in:

A. 1941 ( )

B. 1942 ( )

C. 1943 ( )

D.1945

10. The greatest for earthquake Tsunami this year took place in

A. Japan ( )

B. Indonesia ( )

A( )

D. Thailand

III. Read the following report, and do the following:( 每题10分，共30分)

1)Give a headline

2)Point out 5W1H

3)Point out the second-information paragraph.

United States President Barack Obama arrived last night at Shanghai Pudong I nternational Airport to kick off his first visit to China, and will begin ne gotiations that will likely take a more cooperative tone than that of his pr edecessors.

The 48-year-old is the first US president to visit China within the first ye ar of taking office. He will arrive in Beijing this afternoon during his fou r-day visit and meet President Hu Jintao, top legislator Wu Bangguo and Prem ier Wen Jiabao tomorrow and on Wednesday.

The China trip is also part of his first to Asia as president. In his wide-r anging speech in Japan on Saturday, Obama said he would welcome, not fear, a robust China as a powerful partner on urgent challenges.

It is also reported that he might meet in Beijing his half-brother, Mark Oko th Obama Ndesandjo, who has lived in the southern metropolis of Shenzhen for seven years and speaks fluent Mandarin.

IV. Read the following paragraph and do the following: (第1、2题各10分，第3题20分，共40分)

1)Give a title to the commentary.

2)Translate the underlined parts into Chinese.

3)Answer the questions subject to the text.

The announcement that U.S. President Barrack Obama was selected as the winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize was met with surprise by many, including Obama himself. Those who are critical of the decision range from the skeptics, who feel he is not qualified to receive such a prize, to the outright antagonists, who disagree with what Obama stands for, particularly U.S. policies around the world.

Among academicians and politicians there are always divisions –right and left, conservative and liberal, realistic and idealistic. The debate over this award can be seen as a debate between realism and idealism.

When it comes to awards, realists would argue that a person should be rewarded for what he has achieved. It is not enough that a person’s visions and plans have the possibility of prevailing or contributing to the future. Without concrete results, the actual materialization of ideas, there is nothing to reward.

From this point of view, Obama would have had no chance of winning the prize. He had been in office only 20 days before the deadline for nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. He had done nothing impressive up to that point other than being elected to the highest office in the United States on the rhetoric of “change.”Of course it was an historical accomplishment to be elected the first black president, but did this alone merit the peace prize?

Indeed, even by the time he was announced as the winner, critics evaluated Obama poorly in terms of his efforts to implement change. He had taken a long time to organize his administration, leaving some vacancies open for a long time. His domestic healthcare plan was mired in controversy; his economic stimulus package was facing criticism; his calls for the abandonment of nuclear weapons, suggestions for action on climate change and tactics for fighting terrorism had not actually produced results.

Some people wondered what was wrong with the Nobel Prize Committee. Was the small group of Norwegians irrational? Were they trying to make a political statement? Were they simply in awe of the U.S. president with African roots that has charmed the world with his pleasant smile and pleasing words?

Obama himself appeared genuinely surprised to hear he had won the prize. He said he was “humbled”to stand in the company of previous recipients who had accomplished much more than he.

If the peace prize were to go to an American president, one may ask, why not George W. Bush? He has exerted great influence in the world. He has pursued terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, worked toward a roadmap to resolve the Palestinian conflict, sent aid to impoverished nations in Africa. Yet terrorists are still carrying out attacks around the globe, there is no peace in Palestine, and poverty is still widespread in Africa. The Bush administration was seen as militant, aggressive and realistic. It earned the United States a great deal of ill will around the world with its aggressive policies.

Obama represents the opposite attitude – accommodating, peace-loving and idealistic. Even though it’s difficult for the United States to change course suddenly on every front, he has already changed the direction of U.S. policy by proclaiming his intent – to rid the world of nuclear weapons, to cooperate with other countries on climate change, to withdraw U.S. troops from the battlefield.

These intentions represent peace. Surely ideas and intentions play a pivotal role in changing the reality. Then why not hail that and promote such a mindset? The essence of idealism lies in its intention, to enlighten, encourage and promote certain movements in the future. Without idealists waving such flags, human beings would have made little progress in improving our world.

We could say that peace is the trend of history. Looking back, we can see that the Peace of Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years War in Europe in 1648 initiated the era of the sovereign state, upon which modern states are based. The French Revolution that ended in 1799 initiated a wave of nationalism that led to the independence of many states in the 1920s, 1940s and 1960s.

The creation of the League of Nations after World War I and the United Nations after World War II encouraged independent nations to work together and contributed much to international peace and stability. In more recent times, the World Trade Organization, the European Union and the G20 represent efforts by countries to work together toward a shared purpose.

All of these organizations grew out of an idealistic vision and a spirit of cooperation. The vision played a pivotal role in changing the reality. These progressive ideas have led human beings out of darkness, blindness, backwardness and even cruelty. Idealism has served as a beacon in the past, and must continue to do so today.

Idealism does not mean Utopia, or a mere dream with no base in reality. It is an expression of intent to pursue progressiveness, peace and prosperity by applying rational and scientific principles to reality.

Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama was in recognition of his role as an idealist for our times. If Wilsonism led to the League of Nations; if Rooseveltism led to the defeat of the Nazis; if Jean Monnetism led to unity in Europe, why not give Obamaism a chance?

The decision of the Nobel Prize Committee should be appreciated for encouraging a wave of idealism, which will make our world a better place.

Questions:

a)According to the tone of this commentary, do you think the author is for Obama’s winning

the prize or against it?

b)Should the Nobel Prize Committee award Obama? Why?

c)Why the Nobel Prize Winner failed to give the award to Chinese leaders on establishing

a harmonious world?