summary writing(原文及范文)

summary writing(

原文及范文）

Writing

Directions: For this part, you are to write a summary of either of two articles that are

presented

to

you

in

the

following.

Your

summary

should

be

150-200

words.

Remember to write neatly.

Science and Humanity

The twentieth century saw more momentous change than any previous century:

change for better, change for worse; change that brought enormous benefits to human

beings, change that threatens the very existence of the human species. Many factors

contributed

to

this

change

but

—

in

my opinion

—

the most important

factor was the

progress in science.

Academic research in the physical and biological sciences has vastly broadened

our

horizons;

it

has

given

us

a

deep

insight

into

the

structure

of

matter

and

of

the

universe; it has brought better understanding of the nature of life and of its continuous

evolution.

Technology

—

the application of science

—

has made fantastic advances that

have affected us beneficially in nearly every aspect of life: better health, more wealth,

less drudgery (

单调沉闷的工作

), greater access to information.

Sadly, however, there is another side to the picture. The creativity of science has

been

employed

to

the

detriment(

损害

)

of

mankind.

The

application

of

science

and

technology to the development and manufacture of weapons of mass destruction has

created a real threat to the continued existence of the human race on this planet. We

have

seen

this

happen

in

the

case

of

nuclear

weapons.

Although

their

actual

use

in

combat has so far occurred only in 1945

—

when two Japanese cities were destroyed

—

during the four decades of the Cold War, obscenely huge arsenals(

武器库

) of nuclear

weapons were accumulated and made ready for use. The arsenals were so large that if

the

weapons

had

actually

been

detonated

(

爆炸

)

the

result

could

have

been

the

complete extinction of the human species, as well as of many animal species.

William Shakespeare said

:

混合的

) yarn,

good and ill together.

human activities

—

science

—

seems to bear out this adage (

格言

). But does it have to be

so?

Must

ill

always

accompany

good

deeds?

Are

we

biologically

programmed

for

aggression and war?

I am not an authority in genetics, but from my readings and life-long observation

I do not see any evidence that we are genetically condemned to commit evil. On the

contrary, on very general grounds I would say that genetically we are destined to do

things

that

are

of

benefit

to

the

human

species,

and

that

the

negative

aspects

are

mistakes, transient errors in the process of evolution. In other words, I believe in the

inherent goodness of Man.

1

We

are

thus

faced

with

a

daunting

(

威吓，使胆怯

)

dilemma.

As

a

process

of

natural

evolution,

science

should

be

allowed

to

develop

freely,

without

restrictions.

But can we afford the luxury of uninhibited research in the natural sciences, with its

awesome

(

可怕的

)

potential

of

total

destruction,

in

a

world

in

which

war

is

still

a

recognized social institution?

The preservation of the human species and its continuing enhancement demand

that we learn to live with one another in peace and harmony. But this learning process

has

been

slow

and

arduous

(

费力的

),

and

is

not

yet

complete.

Due

to

the

harsh

conditions under which primitive man lived, he often had to fight with other human

beings for survival. Individual killing and, later, collective killing

—

< br>war

—

thus began

to be seen as a natural phenomenon.

We are still not organized for a war- free world. But in the meantime, the human

species may be brought to an end by the use of the tools of destruction, themselves the

product of science and technology.

In my opinion, the problem has to a large extent arisen from the uneven rate of

advance in the different areas of human activities, in particular, between the progress

in the natural sciences

—

which include the physical and biological disciplines, and the

various social sciences

—

economics, sociology, politics (with psychology perhaps at

the interface between the two major groups). Undoubtedly, there has been much faster

progress in the natural sciences than in the social ones.

Why

have

the

natural

sciences,

especially

the

physical

sciences,

advanced

so

much faster than the social sciences? It is not because physicists are wiser or cleverer

than, say, economists. The explanation is simply that physics is easier to master than

economics.

Although

the

material

world

is

a

highly

complex

system,

for

practical

purposes

it

can

be

described

by

a

few

general

laws.

The

laws

of

physics

are

immutable

(

不可

改变

的

).

They

apply

everywhere,

on

this

planet

as

well

as

everywhere

else

in

the

universe,

and

are

not

affected

by

human

reactions

and

emotions, as the social sciences are.

How can we tackle this unevenness in the rate of progress of of

science?

Two

ways

come

to

mind

:

one,

by

accelerating

the

rate

of

progress

in

the

social sciences; two, by slowing down the rate of advancement of the natural sciences

in some areas, for example, by the imposition of ethical codes of conduct.

Clearly, the former is

by

far the preferable way. What

we would like to see is

faster progress in the social sciences, leading to the establishment of a social system

which would make war not only unnecessary but unthinkable; a system in which the

existence

of

old,

or

the

invention

of

new,

weapons

of

mass

destruction,

would

not

matter, because nobody would dream of using them; a system in which people will be

able to say:

“

nuclear weapons: who cares?

”

Responsibility for one's actions is, of course, a basic requirement of every citizen,

not just of scientists. Each of us must be accountable for our deeds. But the need for

such responsibility is particularly imperative for scientists, if only because scientists

2

understand the technical problems

better than the average

citizen or politician. And

knowledge brings responsibility.

In any case, scientists do not have a completely free hand. The general public,

through

elected

governments,

have

the

means

to

control

science,

either

by

withholding

(

抑制

)

the

purse,

or

by

imposing

restrictive

regulations

harmful

to

science. Clearly it is far better that any control should be exercised by the scientists

themselves, through a self-imposed code of conduct. The establishment of an ethical

code of conduct for scientists is an idea whose time has come.

Summary

：

Science and Humanity

The

twentieth

century

has

made

greater

change

to

the

world,

which

was

brought by the progress in science, than any previous century. Unfortunately, not all

these

changes

did

good

to

the

human

society.

Some

of

them

have

done

serious

damage

to

mankind

and

have

been

even

predicted

to

destroy

the

whole

world

someday

if

out

of

control.

In

fact,

mankind

is

not

biologically

programmed

for

violent behaviors like war. People are faced with a dilemma in which we would like

to

see

science

develop

freely,

but

cannot

afford

the

result

of

that.

It

is

a

basic

instinct that man tends to protect oneself by fighting with others. The progress in

the

nautral

sciences

is

much

faster

than

that

in

social

sciences

because

laws

in

natural

sciences

are

immutable

and

apply

everywhere

and

are

not

affected

by

human

reactions

and

emotions.

For

even

developmemt

and

for

a

better

future

of

mankind, imposition of ethical codes is necessary. Everyone should be responsible

for his behavior, especially the scientists. (166 words)

China Sees Opportunities in Climate Change

UNLIKE

America’s

leaders,

China’s

bosses

are

not

much

troubled

by

recalcitrant

（顽强的）

legislatures. The government has therefore had no difficulty in

executing a smart volte face

（

完全改变）

on climate change. Around three years ago its

fierce resistance to the notion of any limit on its greenhouse-gas emissions started to

soften. It now seems to be making serious efforts to control them.

One

reason

for

this

change

is

the

country’s

growing

awareness

of

its

vulnerability

to

a

warming

world.

The

monsoon

（季风）

seems

to

be

weakening,

travelling less far inland and dumping its rainfall on the coasts. As a result China is

seeing floods in the south-east and droughts in the north-west. At the same time the

country’s

leaders

are

deeply

concerned

about

the

melting

of

the

glaciers

on

the

3