今天我给大家整理了CATTI真题和出处，大家可以把这些网站收藏下，以后可以多看上面的文章哦。参考译文以后有机会了再更，或者课程中讲吧。

注：真题皆为回忆版本，考试在原文基础上有部分删减或改动，转载请注明出自——公众号：高斋CATTI

声明：这个不清楚考了哪些段落，大家可以评论区留言。

出处：

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/advice/2019/11/08/why-economy-passengers-should-stop-reclining-their-airline-seats/4158135002/

Stop reclining your airplane seat.

Two domestic airlines already limit your ability to lean back in economy class. Even if the airline doesn't make the decision for you, it's the polite thing to do. And, most important, it's the right thing to do.

"Seat reclining is one of the most irritating, inconvenient, self-indulgent habits," says Simon Sapper, an organizational consultant and frequent traveler based in London. "Period."

But click around the internet for a while, and you'll find that this debate is far from settled. Many of the blogosphere's "experts" believe it's their God-given right to recline. Ironically, the loudest seat recliners don't even fly in economy class.

So, as a public service, let's settle this argument now. Reclining your airline seat is unacceptable because we're officially out of space. It's rude – and it's wrong.

There's no space to recline. Airlines are trying to squeeze more passengers on a plane to make more money. Before airline deregulation, many economy class seats had a generous 36 inches of "pitch," a rough measure of legroom. Today, some seats have as little as 28 inches.

"I feel most folks would rather sacrifice the 2 inches of reclining backward not to have someone sitting in their lap for the distance of a flight," says Mary Camillo, a travel advisor from Middletown, New Jersey. "Airlines should instill on passengers what parents have been trying to instill in their children for years. That is, if you do not have enough to share with everyone, then wait until you do."

Also, airlines should immediately stop using the phrase "Sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight." That's an invitation to lean back all the way. But it's a cruel joke. On two airlines – Delta and Spirit – you can't fully recline. On other airlines, you'll invade another passenger's personal space, which might lead to an unfriendly confrontation.

You can do a lot of things on a plane. For example, you can tell your life story to your seatmate. You can eat a Limburger cheese and Bermuda onion sandwich. You can press the flight attendant call button repeatedly. But all are probably bad ideas.

"Seat recline is a moral issue," says Jennifer Aspinwall, a frequent air traveler who writes the World On A Whim blog." What do you do if the person in front of you reclines all the way? What if you turn around to discover that a 6-foot-4 passenger seated behind you? Do you eat your meal in your lap while the tray table cuts into your stomach or do recline as well and crush the legs of the person behind you?"

Couldn't have said it better myself. Reclining a seat is wrong.

Airlines should lock their economy seats from reclining – permanently

So if there's no room to recline your airplane seat, and it's wrong, why do so many airlines still allow it? Because if they didn't, it would be an admission that they no longer care about your comfort. Airlines are stacking you into a plane like cargo – no two ways about it.

"I wish all airlines would eliminate the recline function," says Larry Hickerson, a retired Air Force inspector and million-miler from Peoria, Arizona. "Since airlines went to ridiculously tight pitches, recline sets up an untenable situation."

Right now, about half the people reading this column probably want to name their firstborn after me. The other half want to kill me. And the airline folks? They're laughing.

The airline industry loves the seat reclining argument because it divides us. And while we're arguing about 2 inches of personal space, they're busy collecting more money from passengers and slowly – ever so slowly – removing even more room. This debate is the perfect distraction.

Whether you think reclining your airline seat is wrong or not, let's agree on one thing: Greedy airlines got us to this point. Fighting over the scraps of space won't fix it. If we ever needed thoughtful government regulation, maybe it is now.

"The airline industry loves the sea-reclining argument because it divides us," argues Christopher Elliott. "And while we're arguing about two inches of personal space, they're busy collecting more money from passengers and slowly -- ever so slowly -- removing even more room. This debate is the perfect distraction."

How to deal with a seat recliner

Reclining an airline seat is still allowed on most domestic flights. Here's how to deal with someone who leans into your airspace.

Ask them to lean forward. Timing and tone are important here. The moment someone leans back, gently tap the person on the shoulder and politely ask them if it would be possible not to recline their seat. Be. Extra. Nice.

Get a flight attendant involved. Some leaners are clever and wait for you to go to the restroom before leaning. Then they feign sleep, which makes you reluctant to bother them. Oldest trick in the book. You can always ask a flight attendant for help.

Move airplane seats. If you see another open seat in your class of service, feel free to move, as long as the seat belt sign isn't illuminated. You might also want to ask a flight attendant for permission. As a reminder, the seats in front of the exit row don't recline. So usually, an exit row seat means you'll keep your legroom. And maybe, your sanity.

这篇稍微简单点，很多表达和句型课程及公众号上都讲过。

出处：

http://www.gaozhaiedu.com/html/whitepaper/wangyishuangyuyanjiangzhici/2021/0508/4234.html

当前，新冠疫情仍在全球蔓延，世界经济依然面临衰退风险。我们将坚持团结互助，与各国携手最终战胜新冠疫情。当前，疫苗是抵御疫情的关键。中国反对“疫苗民族主义”，疫苗应成为全球公共产品，

As we speak, COVID-19 is still raging in the world and the world economy is still grappling with the risk of a recession. We will uphold solidarity and mutual assistance as we work with other countries to prevail over the coronavirus. Vaccines hold the key in the battle against COVID-19. China opposes “vaccine nationalism” and believes that vaccines must be made a global public good.

中国迄今已向全球160多个国家和国际组织提供了抗疫物资援助，正在以不同方式向100多个国家和国际组织提供急需的疫苗，为全球疫情防控提供了强大助力。接下来，中国将继续充分发挥自身优势，维护全球抗疫物资供应链稳定，将继续积极开展人道主义援助，向有需要的国家提供支持，将继续坚定秉持疫苗公共产品的“第一属性”，让更多发展中国家用得起、用得上安全可靠的疫苗。

We have donated supplies to over 160 countries and international organizations and are providing, by various means, vaccines to over 100 countries and international organizations in urgent need, thus giving a strong boost to the global COVID response. China will continue to fully harness its strengths to keep the global supply chains for COVID supplies stable; China will continue to provide humanitarian assistance and support countries in need; and China will stay committed to making COVID vaccines a public good above anything else so that safe and effective vaccines can be affordable and accessible to more developing countries.

我们将坚持开放合作，与各国携手推动世界经济复苏。我们已顺利开启“十四五”规划，加快建设更高水平开放型经济新体制。一个全面迈向高质量发展的中国，将更充分发掘自身超大市场潜力，为各国带来新的发展机遇。而一个持续扩大对外开放的中国，将进一步深化与各国互利合作，为世界经济复苏注入更多动力。

We will uphold openness and cooperation as we work with other countries to promote world economic recovery. We have made a good start in implementing the 14th Five-Year Plan, and are

developing new systems for a higher-standard open economy at a faster pace. As a country pursuing high-quality development, China will further unleash the potential of its huge market to bring new development opportunities to all countries. As a country in the process of further opening up, China will deepen mutually beneficial cooperation with other countries to inject more impetus to world economic recovery.

全人类是一个整体，生命与健康，生存与发展，是各国人民都应享有的平等权利。中国，将继续高举人类命运共同体旗帜，坚持共商共建共享原则，积极践行真正的多边主义，捍卫以《联合国宪章》为基础的国际秩序，持续完善全球治理体系，建设人类卫生健康共同体，与各国一道维护世界和平稳定，弥合人类发展鸿沟，共同开创更加美好的未来。

Humankind is a global community. The rights to life, health, survival, and development must be equally enjoyed by people of all countries. China will stay committed to the vision of building a community with a shared future for mankind, follow the principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits, uphold true multilateralism, and safeguard the international order based on the UN Charter. China will continue to improve the global governance system and build a global community of health for all. China will work with other countries to maintain world peace and stability, bridge the development gap, and create a brighter future for all.

声明：这个不清楚考了哪些段落，大家可以评论区留言。

出处：

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/19/david-cameron-autobiography-for-the-record-review-brexit-referendum

A spectre haunts this book – the spectre of Europe. Just as the 700 pages of Tony Blair’s autobiography could not escape the shadow of Iraq, so the 700 pages of David Cameron’s memoir are destined to be read through a single lens: Brexit.

For all its detailed accounts of coalition talks with Nick Clegg or anxious Syria debates with Barack Obama, Brexit is the story. Cameron acknowledges as much, writing several times that he goes over the events that led to the leave vote of 2016 every day, “over and over again. Reliving and rethinking the decisions, rerunning alternatives and what-might-have-beens.” Later he writes: “My regrets about what had happened went deep. I knew then that they would never leave me. And they never have.”

It’s this which gives the book its narrative arc, one it shares with Blair’s. Both tell the story of a man whose previously charmed path to success is suddenly interrupted, running into a catastrophe that will haunt him to his last breath. The build-up is the same in both cases, a series of consecutive victories – winning his party’s leadership, rebranding and modernising that party to appeal to the centre ground, reaching Downing Street, winning re-election – only to make a decision that will wreak lasting havoc. 

Cameron offers the same defence for Brexit that Blair gave for Iraq: yes, things might have turned out disastrously, but my mistake was honest, I acted in good faith, I only did what I truly believed was right.

Memoirist David Cameron ... The Cameron Years

TV tonight: the rise and plummeting fall of David Cameron

Read more

Which is not to say that For the Record is not self-critical. On the contrary, Cameron scolds himself throughout and not only on Brexit. He writes that he often misses the wood for the trees, getting lost in policy detail and failing “to see the bigger, emotional picture”.

On Brexit, he is scathing, counting off the judgments he got wrong. He raised expectations too high on his renegotiation of Britain’s membership of the EU, so that whatever concessions he did extract were bound to look paltry. He did not fight to grant 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote, even though it would have helped the remain cause and had already happened in the Scottish referendum.

He did not push back on the wording of the referendum question, even though he knew the recommendation of the Electoral Commission meant his side had lost “the positive word ‘Yes’… and ‘Leave’ sounded dynamic in contrast to ‘Remain’”. When George Osborne urged him to go hard against leave leaders, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, Cameron feared such “‘blue on blue’ attacks would just make the campaign look like a Conservative spat”.

At first, all this makes Cameron an appealing narrator. The self-deprecating toff is an established type – it made Hugh Grant a star – and Cameron plays it well. But after a while, it grates. That’s partly because it too often amounts to a humblebrag. Witness the moment when the leave campaign suggested Britain was about to open its doors to 76 million Turkish immigrants. Advisers urged Cameron to say that could never happen because he would veto Turkey joining the EU. But Cameron felt that would be unfair, snuffing out Turkey’s legitimate aspiration to be an EU member. “I was caught between being a campaigner and being a prime minister, and I chose the latter … I made the wrong choice.” If I had a flaw, it’s that I was too responsible.

But that’s not the chief reason why this litany of confessed errors gradually loses its charm. At a certain point, the reader stops feeling sympathy for the author and concludes that he was just serially and unforgivably wrong. For the Record is meant to be the case for the defence. In fact, Cameron has written his own indictment.

That’s most apparent when the author is unaware that he is laying bare his mistakes. He decries the fact that British anti-EU sentiment had been in gestation for decades and could not be turned around in a matter of weeks. Yet his own book is full of EU-bashing – hardly surprising for a politician who had cheerfully surfed the Eurosceptic wave to reach the top of his party. Cameron, like many others, only articulated – or perhaps only fully realised – the value of Britain’s EU membership when it was too late.

He describes how he could see Boris Johnson – who emerges on these pages as chaotic, vain and utterly devoid of principle – becoming ever more tempted by the leave cause. After all, the Brexit side would be “loaded with images of patriotism, independence and romance”. But if Cameron could see that ahead of the referendum campaign, why did he not construct a remain message that would match leave’s emotional appeal, instead of consciously relying on, as he puts it, “arguments of the head, not the heart”?

Indeed, if he understood the deep emotional pull Brexit was bound to exert, and given that he believed leaving the EU would spell calamity for Britain, what on earth was he doing risking that outcome by calling a referendum in the first place?

Cameron addresses that implicit objection throughout the book, repeatedly insisting that such a ballot was “inevitable” and could not be avoided. That he makes this point so often – citing a letter from John Major to that effect on the penultimate page – conveys not confidence in his case but rather a nagging anxiety. If he does have doubts, one can hardly blame him. It’s true that Ukip was snapping at the Tories’ heels, but the notion that public demand for an in/out referendum had reached a deafening clamour just does not square with the facts. When Britons were asked one year before the vote to list the issues that concerned them most, “Europe” did not make the top 10.

‘The best political memoirs involve an honest reckoning with mistakes as well as the inevitable recital of triumphs’ David Cameron, whose memoir has just been published.

As David Cameron tells all, a guide to the best political memoirs

Read more

Nevertheless, For the Record reminds you why Cameron dominated British politics for so long. The prose is, like him, smooth and efficient. There are welcome splashes of colour – from wife Sam dancing in the Downing Street kitchen to a moment over “kippers and kedgeree” at Balmoral that will doubtless make its way into The Crown – and plenty of gossipy observations of colleagues. The chapter describing the short life and death of the Camerons’ severely disabled son, Ivan, is almost unbearably moving. With admirable honestly, Cameron admits that the period of mourning did not only follow his son’s death but his birth, “trying to come to terms with the difference between the child you expected and longed for and the reality that you now face”. What had, until then, been a charmed life was interrupted by the deepest heartbreak.

Even those readers with no affection for Cameron, including those who will bridle at the book’s unrepentant defence of austerity, might empathise with his account of what it was like to fight against perhaps the first fully post-truth, populist campaign. No matter how much evidence or expertise the remain camp mustered, leave would reply with an astonishing “mendacity”. Cameron was driving himself hoarse, advancing “reasonable, rational” arguments, while they were serving up £350m worth of lies – and winning. Cameron writes: “It was like one of those dreams where you’re trying to shout but no sound is coming out.”

Cameron’s most unbending critics will put down this book as sure as ever that he was a hollow man lacking in any ideology or conviction beyond a vague, patrician faith in public service and his own ability to do the job of PM well. They will continue to see him as largely indifferent to the suffering his austerity programme inflicted on the country – incredibly, he praises himself for empowering “council chiefs”, even though his cuts forced local authorities to axe vital services for the most vulnerable. It should be possible to condemn all that and still reflect that, while Cameron was a PR man and spin merchant to his fingertips, he did at least live in the realm of facts, proof and evidence. In the age of Johnson, perhaps that should not be taken for granted.

The problem with For the Record is not its honesty. As far as this most self-serving of genres – the politician’s memoir – goes, it is a truthful account. The problem is that on the most important question of the age, David Cameron got it wrong. That will haunt him forever – indeed, it will haunt every last one of us.

声明：这个不清楚考了哪些段落，大家可以评论区留言。

出处：

https://coregreenpower.com/2021/09/30/new-trade-rules-vital-to-protecting-the-planet/

As satellites from NASA zipped over the planet Earth yesterday, they saw what they have seen every day for months: fires, hundreds of them, tearing through virgin rainforest and other vital ecosystems.

Many of the blazes, which come at the tail end of a devastating fire season, are believed to have been set by farmers eager to clear land and sate the booming global demand for beef and soybeans.

A new United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report, jointly produced with the International Resource Panel, says that type of unbridled international trade is having a damaging effect not only on rainforests but the entire planet. The report, which called for a raft of new Earth-friendly trade rules, found that the extraction of natural resources could spark water shortages, drive animals to extinction and accelerate climate change – all of which would be ruinous to the global economy.

“The economic fallout of COVID-19 is just an overture to what we would see if the Earth’s natural systems break down. We have to make sure that our global trade policies protect the environment not only for the sake of our planet but also for the long-term health of our economies,” said Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP.

It found that in 2017, 35 billion tonnes of material resources, from oil to iron to potatoes, were extracted from the earth specifically for the purposes of trade. While that helped create millions of jobs, especially in poor communities, the report found it had a profound effect of the planet. Resource extraction was responsible for 90 per cent of species loss, 90 per cent of water stress and 50 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in 2017.

With the demand for natural resources set to double by 2060, the report called on policy makers to embrace what is known as a “circular” economic model.  That would see businesses use fewer resources, recycle more and extend the life of their products. It would also put an onus on consumers to buy less, save energy and repair things that are broken instead of throwing them away.

“There’s this idea out there that we have to log, mine, and drill our way to prosperity. But that’s not true. By embracing circularity and re-using materials we can still drive economic growth while protecting the planet for future generations.”

Those changes could pay big dividends for the planet, the report found. By conserving resources, humanity could slash its greenhouse gas emissions by 90 per cent.

While the circular model could have “economic implications” for countries that depend on natural resources, it would give rise to new industries devoted to recycling and repair. Overall, the report predicts, a greener economic model would boost growth by 8 per cent by 2060.

“There’s this idea out there that we have to log, mine, and drill our way to prosperity,” said Inger Andersen. “But that’s not true. By embracing circularity and re-using materials we can still drive economic growth while protecting the planet for future generations.”

Some countries, both in the developed and developing world, have embraced the concept of a circular economy. But the report said international trade agreements can play an important role in making those systems more common. It called on the World Trade Organization, which has 164 member countries, to take the environment into consideration when setting regulations. It also recommended that regional trade pacts promote investments in planet-friendly industries, eliminate “harmful” subsidies, like those for fossil fuels, and avoid undercutting global environmental accords.

“Re-orienting the global economy isn’t an easy job,” said Inger Andersen. There are a lot of vested interests we have to contend with. But with the Earth’s population expected to reach almost 10 billion by 2050, we need to find ways to relieve the pressure on the planet.”

注：汉译英部分还没找到，后面了再更吧！

？？？

？？？