02年9月高级口译(编辑修改稿)

02年9月高级口译(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

ces in the World Trade Center (C) had employed Bent before 1998 (D) had stopped publication after the attack on the World Trade Center 2. According to the passage, the Pulitzer Prizes . (A) are sponsored by Columbia University (B) are awarded every year (C) are determined by a group of journalists (D) are based on other awards 3. The sentence Bent knew advance that he was on the short list.(Para. 5)can be interpreted as which of the following? (A) Bent knew later that he would miss the prize again. (B) Bent guessed from some source that he would definitely win this prize. (C) Bent knew that the Pulitzer Prize was not what he wanted. (D) Bent realized beforehand that he entered the group of finalists. 4. We can know from the passage that all of the following s true about Bent WXCEPT that . (A) he had been through trouble before he started to work for the Monitor (B) he has been changing his cartooning style with the help of puter (C) he timely changed the cartoons submitted to the Pulitzer Awards (D) he had been nominated for the award for a number of times before 5. In the passage, Ben39。 s family used the expression Pulitzer tension to show his . (A) anxiety over winning the award (B) gratitude for the newspaper that hired him (C) regret about his employer39。 s policy (D) dissatisfaction with his new job Questions 6～ 10 Bill Gates is not the only American entrepreneur with business plan to save the world. There are thousands. Consider Steve Kirsch, who had just turned 35 when he had everything he could want. Adobe, the software giant, had just purchased one of his startups, Eframe, The sale made Kirsch very rich, with a share in a private jet, an estate in California39。 s Los Altos Hills and a burning question: what to do with the rest of a 50 million fortune? After a few years of doling 点点英语 —— 专业致力于四六级、考研和口译口语 6 out money to traditional charitieshis alma mater, the United WayKirsch got ambitious. He set up his own foundation to benefit everyone, funding research on everything from cancer to nearearth objects. It is guaranteed that we will be hit by an asteroid sometime in the future, perhaps before we end this phone conversation. Kirsch explains. It would cost several billion lives, and we can save those lives for 50 million, which is less than the cost of a private jet. I call it enlightened selfinterest. American philanthropy isn39。 t what it used to be. Gone are the days when old money was doled out by bureaucrats from mahoganypaneled rooms. More people are giving out more money than ever before, at much younger ages, and to a much wider variety of causes. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan39。 s call for private charity to replace government largesse was greeted with hoots of liberal derisionand an outbreak of giving. The number of private foundations rose from 22, 000 in 1980 to 55, 000 today. They now dole out about billion a year, a 700 percent increase since 1980. And many are the offspring of capitalists, who bring the language of business to charity. Vanessa Kirsch, president and founder of the entrepreneurial charity New Profit Inc., says, There39。 s this new breed of social entrepreneurs ing out of Harvard Business School or failed dots, and they39。 re saying, ‘ I want to make big things happen.’ Their outlook is increasingly global, in the Gates mold. The share of funding that the 1, 000 largest foundations devote to international causes jumped from percent in 1999 to percent in 2020. And while the . government is often criticized for stingy foreign aid (well under 1 percent of GNP each year), the same can39。 t be said of private donors, who now give away percent of each year. No nation es even remotely close to the . on these things, says Scott Walker of the Philanthropy Roundtable. If you39。 re in Sweden or France, it39。 s something the government is supposed to do. If you were in England, it is the nobility. Americans don39。 t think it39。 s enough to say, ‘ I gave at the office with taxes.’ To be sure, business and philanthropy are old bedfellows in the United States. The Rockefellers, the Carnegies and the Fords set the mold. But many were what Mark Dowie, author of American Foundations: An Investigative History, calls s. o. b. s patrons of symphonies, operas, ballets, and museums and hospitals where rich people go to die. The new foundations are more like quasipublic trusts progressive institutions of change, argues Dowie. The new movers and shakers of American charity are more likely to be flashy TV titans like Ted Turner. The story of how Turner gave away a billion is a founding legend of this class. In a cab on his way to make a speech at the United Nations, the cable titan, sick of official . reluctance to pay . dues, decided to pony up 1 billion himself. This shamed Washington and inspired imitators. It is a lot more personalityoriented in this culture of new wealth, says Ellen Dadisman, vice president of the Council on Foundations. It39。 s sort of like wealth meets People magazine. In Silicon Valley, the new fashion is called venture philanthropy. According to one survey, 83 percent of valley households give to charity, pared with 69 percent nationally. But they prefer to invest, not give. And to attract investors, fundraisers promise handson 点点英语 —— 专业致力于四六级、考研和口译口语 7 management of the nonprofits they support. They demand seats on the board, set performance goals and plan an exit strategy in case expectations aren39。 t met. Traditionally, foundations have not been as invasive, says Dadisman. They didn39。 t go to the nonprofit and say, “How much are you paying for rent? Why are you using these oldfashioned puters?’ It may be invasive, but if it works it could help save the world. Even from asteroids. 6. Why does the author introduce。