还是不明白，哪位好心得天使大哥大姐再路过替我看下，先谢了

flyingceleste

首先，请阅读区斑竹表气，偶也4米有办法才发这儿来低，8能索阅读区回复慢，只能说偶急性子，这里人气旺就过来了，今天作了考古题第12篇，水平不高，不难得文章错了几道，其中2题老想不明白，怀疑是不是答案错了？发上来请NN看看了只能

The idea of building “New Towns” to absorb growth is frequently considered a cure-all for urban problems. It is erroneously assumed that if new residents can be diverted from existing centers, the present urban situation at least will get no worse. It is further and equally erroneously assumed that since European New Towns have been financially and socially successful, we can expect the same sorts of results in the United States.

Present planning, thinking, and legislation will not produce the kinds of New Town that have been successful abroad. It will multiply suburbs or encourage developments in areas where land is cheap and construction profitable rather than where New Towns are genuinely needed.

Such ill-considered projects not only will fail to relieve pressures on existing cities but will, in fact, tend to weaken those cities further by drawing away high-income citizens and increasing the concentration of low-income groups that are unable to provide tax income. The remaining taxpayers, accordingly, will face increasing burdens, and industry and commerce will seek escape. Unfortunately, this mechanism is already at work in some metropolitan areas.

The promoters of New Towns so far in the United States have been developers, builders, and financial institutions. The main interest of these promoters is economic gain. Furthermore, federal regulations designed to promote the New Town idea do not consider social needs as the European New Town plans do. In fact, our regulations specify virtually all the ingredients of the typical suburban community, with a bit of political rhetoric thrown in.

A workable American New Town formula should be established as firmly here as the national formula was in Britain. All possible social and governmental innovations as well as financial factors should be thoroughly considered and accommodated in this policy. Its objectives should be clearly stated, and both incentives and penalties should be provided to ensure that the objectives are pursued. If such a policy is developed, then the New Town approach can play an important role in alleviating America’s urban problems.

2.     The author believes that New Towns are not being built where they are genuinely needed because

(A) the government offers developers incentives to build in other areas

(B) the promoters of New Town are motivated chiefly by self-interest

(C) few people want to live in areas where land is still cheap

(D) no studies have been done to determine the best locations（B）

(E) federal regulations make construction in those areas less profitable

3.     According to the author, ill-considered New Towns will tend to weaken existing cities in which of the following ways?

I.      They will cause an erosion in the tax base of existing cities.

II.     The will divert residents from existing cities to other areas.

III.   They will increase the number of low-income residents in existing cities.

(A) I only

(B) II only

(C) I and II only

(D) II and III only（A）

(E) I, II, and III

第2题我怎么也没懂B是怎么得出得？我觉得答案就是第2段啊

第3题我选C得原因是，文章里提到Such ill-considered projects not only will fail to relieve pressures on existing cities but will, in fact, tend to weaken those cities further by drawing away high-income citizens不就是divert residents from existing cities to other areas得意思吗？

BTW，考试时作阅读题得速度1分钟1题差不多吧？

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-4-17 15:56:07编辑过]

gonghao

第2题选B啊

It will multiply suburbs or encourage developments in areas where land is cheap and construction profitable rather than where New Towns are genuinely needed.

只在土地便宜，有建筑利润的众多市郊地方发展；胜过；在真正需要的地方，－－－这不是房地产商出于自己私欲嘛

gonghao

第三提

文中说：不会减轻城市的压力，反而将吸引走一些富人，使得穷人的浓度上升（对穷人的定义是不能带来tax），剩下的人只能面对更高的tax的 burden，然后商业和工业会逃离。

所以I是对的，tax会减少

II。The will divert residents from existing cities to other areas这正是错误的想法，认为人会平均的分开，从而缓解城市的压力，而事实是只有富人会分开一部分。并造成税收负担的增加，商业工业全部撤退，经济出现滑坡。这正是作者认为美国没有完全考虑进所有社会和经济因素的恶果。所以作者认为A workable American New Town formula should be established as firmly here as the national formula was in Britain。认为美国并未领会欧洲人的所有做法。作者认为人分开了，相应的经济和税赋的因素应该也要考虑进去。

III.   They will increase the number of low-income residents in existing cities。绝对数量是不会增加的，增加的只是相对的穷人的concentration。

所以选A

flyingceleste

第2题It will multiply suburbs or encourage developments in areas where land is cheap and construction profitable rather than where New Towns are genuinely needed.紧跟在Present planning, thinking, and legislation will not produce the kinds of New Town that have been successful abroad. 这句话后面，当然要考虑他们之间的关系，现在的政策无法成功实施NEW TOWN，后面说到只在土地便宜，有建筑利润的众多市郊地方发展；胜过；在真正需要的地方不就是说现在的政策不能让这些真正需要发展的地方有更有利润麻，我觉得是E

第3题Such ill-considered projects not only will fail to relieve pressures on existing cities but will, in fact, tend to weaken those cities further by drawing away high-income citizens and increasing the concentration of low-income groups that are unable to provide tax income. 我觉得这句话的意思是说，如此欠考虑的计划不仅要使。。。。失败，而且会通过迫使高收入的人离开而进一步削弱那些城市，而divert from 是转移的意思，没有平均分的意思，所以觉得II也是对的，我觉得这2题答案都有问题，再问再问，考古题15题我觉得里面有些答案让人有点头晕，麻烦了

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-4-17 15:55:02编辑过]

gonghao

以下是引用flyingceleste在2006-4-17 15:54:00的发言：

第2题It will multiply suburbs or encourage developments in areas where land is cheap and construction profitable rather than where New Towns are genuinely needed.紧跟在Present planning, thinking, and legislation will not produce the kinds of New Town that have been successful abroad. 这句话后面，当然要考虑他们之间的关系，现在的政策无法成功实施NEW TOWN，后面说到只在土地便宜，有建筑利润的众多市郊地方发展；胜过；在真正需要的地方不就是说现在的政策不能让这些真正需要发展的地方有更有利润麻，我觉得是E

MM，再看看，文章如你所说是连在一起的，现行的一系列的planning, thinking, and legislation 不能成功建立NEW TOWN.所以将造成真正需要的地方不能早，只在在土地便宜，有建筑利润的众多市郊地方造。

这里的it指的就是现行的一系列的planning, thinking, and legislation

所以是B

gonghao

第3题Such ill-considered projects not only will fail to relieve pressures on existing cities but will, in fact, tend to weaken those cities further by drawing away high-income citizens and increasing the concentration of low-income groups that are unable to provide tax income. 我觉得这句话的意思是说，如此欠考虑的计划不仅要使。。。。失败，而且会通过迫使高收入的人离开而进一步削弱那些城市，而divert from 是转移的意思，没有平均分的意思，所以觉得II也是对的，我觉得这2题答案都有问题，再问再问，考古题15题我觉得里面有些答案让人有点头晕，麻烦了

我觉得这句话的意思是说，如此欠考虑的计划不仅要使。。。。失败，而且会通过迫使高收入的人离开而进一步削弱那些城市，

理解没有错啊

但是II The will divert residents from existing cities to other areas太笼统了，什么样的 residents ？富人跑了是weaken了。要是穷人跑了，那不是反而缓解了吗？

所以太笼统了

flyingceleste

以下是引用gonghao在2006-4-17 17:51:00的发言：

以下是引用flyingceleste在2006-4-17 15:54:00的发言：

第2题It will multiply suburbs or encourage developments in areas where land is cheap and construction profitable rather than where New Towns are genuinely needed.紧跟在Present planning, thinking, and legislation will not produce the kinds of New Town that have been successful abroad. 这句话后面，当然要考虑他们之间的关系，现在的政策无法成功实施NEW TOWN，后面说到只在土地便宜，有建筑利润的众多市郊地方发展；胜过；在真正需要的地方不就是说现在的政策不能让这些真正需要发展的地方有更有利润麻，我觉得是E

MM，再看看，文章如你所说是连在一起的，现行的一系列的planning, thinking, and legislation 不能成功建立NEW TOWN.所以将造成真正需要的地方不能早，只在在土地便宜，有建筑利润的众多市郊地方造。

这里的it指的就是现行的一系列的planning, thinking, and legislation

所以是B

第3题我懂了，第2题还是有疑惑，It即使=一系列的planning, thinking, and legislation It will multiply suburbs or encourage developments in areas where land is cheap and construction profitable rather than where New Towns are genuinely needed=这一系列措施将推动城市或者鼓励那些土地便宜，建造有利的地方的发展，而不是真正需要NEW TOWN的地方，简单的说就是措施鼓励有利可图之地发展，没用到该用之处，言下之意不就是说政策措施没有让该用之处有利吗？假如它让该发展地区有利可图，那NEW TOWN不就真正发展起来了吗？所以觉得是E ,federal regulations make construction in those areas less profitable，我就是不觉得这里根商人惟利是图搭上边了，也不知道是不是钻牛角尖了，非常感谢GONGHAO的耐心解答！，希望ＮＮ门别闲我愚笨

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-4-17 19:28:59编辑过]

flyingceleste

up

gonghao

第3题我懂了，第2题还是有疑惑，It即使=一系列的planning, thinking, and legislation It will multiply suburbs or encourage developments in areas where land is cheap and construction profitable rather than where New Towns are genuinely needed=这一系列措施将推动城市或者鼓励那些土地便宜，建造有利的地方的发展，而不是真正需要NEW TOWN的地方，简单的说就是措施鼓励有利可图之地发展，没用到该用之处，言下之意不就是说政策措施没有让该用之处有利吗？假如它让该发展地区有利可图，那NEW TOWN不就真正发展起来了吗？所以觉得是E ,federal regulations make construction in those areas less profitable，我就是不觉得这里根商人惟利是图搭上边了，也不知道是不是钻牛角尖了，非常感谢GONGHAO的耐心解答！，希望ＮＮ门别闲我愚笨

flyingceleste真是“惟利是图”啊，哈哈，商人的性格表露无疑，哈哈，开个玩笑，赞一个先

回过头来看题目。

首先，文章的基调是批评美国政府没有学习到欧洲人的精髓。即该造的地方没怎么造，不该造的地方反而狂造，为什么呢？因为哪些地方的土地便宜，有利可涂。这是谁的罪过呢？是美国政府制定的政策的错误，政策为什么错了呢？因为美国人没有学习欧洲人该项成功政策的精髓。片面追求经济利益制定了错误的政策导致了恶果。这是文章的主要思想。

看看选项E：federal regulations make construction in those areas less profitable。联邦政策使得那些地方的建筑业无利可图。

该建New Town的地方肯定土地没有其他地方便宜，而偏一点的地方肯定比该建的地方要便宜，更有利可图。这是事实，即使编一万个政策这也是事实，政策要做的就是保证该建New Town的地方，NEW town要建起来，如何能保证呢？就是要考虑进所有的因素，制定出正确的政策，从而保证New TOWN在该建的地方被建起来。

再看看文章It will multiply suburbs or encourage developments in areas where land is cheap and construction profitable rather than where New Towns are genuinely needed。政策推动了土地便宜、有利可图的地方的发展比真正需要的地方要多，且多的多。

这里是地方的比较，地方：被分成了有利可图和无利可图两种，政策只是在有利可图的地方的起的作用，比无利可图的地方要大的多。政策本身并不能使得地方从无利可图变成有利可图，反之亦然。

可见一点，有利可图的地方本身并不随政策的改变而改变，正因为如此，欧洲人在建立NEW TOWN的时候，考虑进了所有的财政的同时也考虑进了社会等其他的因素，以避免出现资金跑出New Town，在更有利可图的地方开发。这正式美国人没有考虑到的地方。

文章的倒数第二段。

The promoters of New Towns so far in the United States have been developers, builders, and financial institutions. The main interest of these promoters is economic gain.

promoters是开发商，建筑商和金融机构，他们的主要目的是经济的增长。所以他们是出于自己的私欲钻政策的空子。从而该造NWE TOWN的地方没怎么造，不该造的地方反而狂造.

Furthermore, federal regulations designed to promote the New Town idea do not consider social needs as the European New Town plans do. In fact, our regulations specify virtually all the ingredients of the typical suburban community, with a bit of political rhetoric thrown in.

这里解释了作者的观点，美国相关政策的制定者只是是经济利益的追逐者，而在欧洲，他们考虑更全面。所以说美国人没有学到欧洲人的精髓。

这样解释   B 应该很明确了吧

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-4-19 11:17:01编辑过]

flyingceleste

哇塞，同学，我可以很负责任的告诉你：你已经达到了2般强的标准！

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-4-19 20:33:20编辑过]