1997年英譯漢試題及參考譯文
Do animals have rights?This is how the question is usually put.It sounds like a useful，ground-clearing way to start.（71）Actually，it isnt，because it assumes that there is an agreed account of human rights，which is something the world does not have.
On one view of rights，to be sure，it necessarily follows that animals have none.72）Some philosophers argue that rights exist only within a social contract，as part of an exchange of duties and entitlements.Therefore，animals cannot have rights.The idea of punishing a tiger that kills somebody is absurd，for exactly the same reason，so is the idea that tigers have ringhts.However，this is only one account，and by no means an uncontested one.It denies rights not only to animals but also to some people—for instance，to infants，the mentally incapable and future generations.In addition，it is unclear what force a contract can have for people who never consented to it:how do you reply to somebody who saysI dont like this contract?
The point is this without agreement on the rights of people，arguing about the rights of animals is fruitless.（73）It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset:it invites you to think that animals should be treated either with the consideration humans extend to other humans，or with no consideration at all.This is a false choice.Better to start with another，more fundamental question:is the way we treat animals a moral issue at all?
Many deny it.（74）Arguing from the view that humans are different from animals in every relevant respect，extremists of this kind think that animals lie outside the area of moral choice.Any regard for the suffering of animals is seen as a mistake—a sentimental displacement of feeling that should properly be directed to other humans.
This view，which holds that torturing a monkey is morally equivalent to chopping wood，may seem bravelylogical.In fact it is simply shallow:the ethical equivalent of learning to crawl—is to weigh others interests against one s own.This in turn requires sympathy and imagination:without which there is no capacity for moral thought.To see an animal in pain is enough，for most，to engage sympathy.（75）When that happens，it is not a mistake:it is mankinds instinct for moral reasoning in action，an instinct that should be encouraged rather than laughed at.
1997年英譯漢試題參考譯文
動物有權力嗎?問題通常就是這樣提出的。這種提法聽起來似乎有助于把問題講清楚。（71）事實并非如此，因為這種問法是以人們對人的權利有一種共識為基礎的，而這種共識并不存在。
誠然，根據(jù)對權利的一種看法，必然認為，這只是一種認識，而且是一種有爭議的認識。這種認識不僅剝奪了動物的權利，而且也剝奪了某些人的權利，例如嬰兒，他們是不會用腦力來思考問題的未來一代人。此外，誰也不清楚，對于從來就不同意契約的人來說，這項契約又有多少約束力，因為有人要是說我不喜歡這項契約，那你又如何作答呢?
問題的癥結是，如果人們對人的權利沒有一致的看法，那么爭論動物的權利是徒勞無益的?（73）這種說法從一開始就將討論引向兩個極端，它使人們認為應這樣對待動物:要么像對人類自身一樣關切體諒，要么完全冷漠無情。這是一處錯誤的選擇。換一種更為根本性的提法:我們對待動物的同情感用到關心動物的身上。
許多人否認這種提法。（74）這類人持極端看法，認為人與動物在各相關方面都不相同，對待動物無須考慮道德問題。任何關心動物疾苦的想法都是錯誤的，因為它把應該用來關心其他人的同情感用到關心動物的身上。
這種觀點認為，折磨猴子從道義上講無異于劈柴。這種看法似乎是大膽的邏輯推理。實際上，這種看法是非常膚淺的，因為它邏輯混亂，所以應該摒棄。道德推理的最初級形式，和學習爬行的論理一樣，是針對自身利益去權衡他人利益。這就需要同情心和將心比心的想像力，沒有這兩點就無法用道德觀念來進行思考?？吹絼游锸芸嘧阋允勾蠖鄶?shù)人產(chǎn)生同情感。（75）這種反應并不錯，這是人類用道德觀念進行推理的本能在起作用。這種本能應該得到鼓勵，而不應遭到嘲笑。
9.1998年英譯漢試題及參考譯文
They were by far，the largest and most distant objects that scientists had ever detected:a strip of enormous cosmic clouds some 15 billion lightyears from earth.
（71）But even more important，it was the farthest that scientists had been able to look into the past，for what they were seeing were the patterns and structures that existed 15 billion yeays ago.That was just about the moment that the universe was born.What the researchers found was at once both amazing and expected:the US National Aeronautics and Space Administrations Cosmic Background Explorer satellite—Cobe—had discovered landmark evidence that the universe did in fact begin with the primeval explosion that has become known as the Big Bang（the theory that the universe originated in an explosion from a single mass of energy）.
（72）The existence of the giant clouds was virtually required for the Big Bang，first put forward in the 1920s，to maintain its reign as the dominant explanation of the cosmos.According to the theory，the universe burst into being as a submicroscopic，unimaginably dense knot of pure energy that flew outward in all directions，emitting radiation as it went，condensing into particles and then into atoms of gas.Over billions of years，the gas was compressed by gravity into galaxies，stars，plants and eventually，even humans.
Cobe is designed to see just the biggest structures，but astronomers would like to see much smaller hot spots as well，the seeds of local objects like clusters and superclusters of galaxies.They shouldnt have long to wait.（73）Astrophysicists working with groundbased detectors at the South Pole and balloonborne instruments are closing in on such structures，and may report their findings soon.
（74）If the small hot spots look as expected，that will be a triumph for yet another scientific idea，a refinement of the Big Bang called the inflationary universe theory.Inflation says that very early on，the universe expanded in size by more than a trillion trillion trillion trillionfold in much less than a second，propelled by a sort of antigravity.（75）Odd though it sounds，cosmic inflation is a scientifically plausible consequence of some respected ideas in elementaryparticle physics，and many astrophysicists have been convinced for the better part of a decade that it is true.
Do animals have rights?This is how the question is usually put.It sounds like a useful，ground-clearing way to start.（71）Actually，it isnt，because it assumes that there is an agreed account of human rights，which is something the world does not have.
On one view of rights，to be sure，it necessarily follows that animals have none.72）Some philosophers argue that rights exist only within a social contract，as part of an exchange of duties and entitlements.Therefore，animals cannot have rights.The idea of punishing a tiger that kills somebody is absurd，for exactly the same reason，so is the idea that tigers have ringhts.However，this is only one account，and by no means an uncontested one.It denies rights not only to animals but also to some people—for instance，to infants，the mentally incapable and future generations.In addition，it is unclear what force a contract can have for people who never consented to it:how do you reply to somebody who saysI dont like this contract?
The point is this without agreement on the rights of people，arguing about the rights of animals is fruitless.（73）It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset:it invites you to think that animals should be treated either with the consideration humans extend to other humans，or with no consideration at all.This is a false choice.Better to start with another，more fundamental question:is the way we treat animals a moral issue at all?
Many deny it.（74）Arguing from the view that humans are different from animals in every relevant respect，extremists of this kind think that animals lie outside the area of moral choice.Any regard for the suffering of animals is seen as a mistake—a sentimental displacement of feeling that should properly be directed to other humans.
This view，which holds that torturing a monkey is morally equivalent to chopping wood，may seem bravelylogical.In fact it is simply shallow:the ethical equivalent of learning to crawl—is to weigh others interests against one s own.This in turn requires sympathy and imagination:without which there is no capacity for moral thought.To see an animal in pain is enough，for most，to engage sympathy.（75）When that happens，it is not a mistake:it is mankinds instinct for moral reasoning in action，an instinct that should be encouraged rather than laughed at.
1997年英譯漢試題參考譯文
動物有權力嗎?問題通常就是這樣提出的。這種提法聽起來似乎有助于把問題講清楚。（71）事實并非如此，因為這種問法是以人們對人的權利有一種共識為基礎的，而這種共識并不存在。
誠然，根據(jù)對權利的一種看法，必然認為，這只是一種認識，而且是一種有爭議的認識。這種認識不僅剝奪了動物的權利，而且也剝奪了某些人的權利，例如嬰兒，他們是不會用腦力來思考問題的未來一代人。此外，誰也不清楚，對于從來就不同意契約的人來說，這項契約又有多少約束力，因為有人要是說我不喜歡這項契約，那你又如何作答呢?
問題的癥結是，如果人們對人的權利沒有一致的看法，那么爭論動物的權利是徒勞無益的?（73）這種說法從一開始就將討論引向兩個極端，它使人們認為應這樣對待動物:要么像對人類自身一樣關切體諒，要么完全冷漠無情。這是一處錯誤的選擇。換一種更為根本性的提法:我們對待動物的同情感用到關心動物的身上。
許多人否認這種提法。（74）這類人持極端看法，認為人與動物在各相關方面都不相同，對待動物無須考慮道德問題。任何關心動物疾苦的想法都是錯誤的，因為它把應該用來關心其他人的同情感用到關心動物的身上。
這種觀點認為，折磨猴子從道義上講無異于劈柴。這種看法似乎是大膽的邏輯推理。實際上，這種看法是非常膚淺的，因為它邏輯混亂，所以應該摒棄。道德推理的最初級形式，和學習爬行的論理一樣，是針對自身利益去權衡他人利益。這就需要同情心和將心比心的想像力，沒有這兩點就無法用道德觀念來進行思考?？吹絼游锸芸嘧阋允勾蠖鄶?shù)人產(chǎn)生同情感。（75）這種反應并不錯，這是人類用道德觀念進行推理的本能在起作用。這種本能應該得到鼓勵，而不應遭到嘲笑。
9.1998年英譯漢試題及參考譯文
They were by far，the largest and most distant objects that scientists had ever detected:a strip of enormous cosmic clouds some 15 billion lightyears from earth.
（71）But even more important，it was the farthest that scientists had been able to look into the past，for what they were seeing were the patterns and structures that existed 15 billion yeays ago.That was just about the moment that the universe was born.What the researchers found was at once both amazing and expected:the US National Aeronautics and Space Administrations Cosmic Background Explorer satellite—Cobe—had discovered landmark evidence that the universe did in fact begin with the primeval explosion that has become known as the Big Bang（the theory that the universe originated in an explosion from a single mass of energy）.
（72）The existence of the giant clouds was virtually required for the Big Bang，first put forward in the 1920s，to maintain its reign as the dominant explanation of the cosmos.According to the theory，the universe burst into being as a submicroscopic，unimaginably dense knot of pure energy that flew outward in all directions，emitting radiation as it went，condensing into particles and then into atoms of gas.Over billions of years，the gas was compressed by gravity into galaxies，stars，plants and eventually，even humans.
Cobe is designed to see just the biggest structures，but astronomers would like to see much smaller hot spots as well，the seeds of local objects like clusters and superclusters of galaxies.They shouldnt have long to wait.（73）Astrophysicists working with groundbased detectors at the South Pole and balloonborne instruments are closing in on such structures，and may report their findings soon.
（74）If the small hot spots look as expected，that will be a triumph for yet another scientific idea，a refinement of the Big Bang called the inflationary universe theory.Inflation says that very early on，the universe expanded in size by more than a trillion trillion trillion trillionfold in much less than a second，propelled by a sort of antigravity.（75）Odd though it sounds，cosmic inflation is a scientifically plausible consequence of some respected ideas in elementaryparticle physics，and many astrophysicists have been convinced for the better part of a decade that it is true.