Section 5 第一篇

　　該文選自2012年9月5日英國《衛報》的文章，主要講述的是英國金融服務監管局(FSA)出重拳整頓英國retail banking行業。監管局在調查中發現，英國金融機構普遍存在“重銷售，輕服務”的現象。銀行業設計的銷售激勵機制讓銷售員賺的彭滿缽滿，導致了銀行理財產品丑聞頻現。因此，監管局導致下令銀行整改，要求銀行必須重拾過去“以服務客戶為中心”的服務理念，否則將面臨嚴厲的處罰。其中英國著名的勞埃德銀行集團被證實由于問題嚴重，被移交監管局的執法部門，如調查屬實，那么集團將面臨數十億的罰款，以達殺雞儆猴之效。金融監管局的命令下發后，銀行紛紛表示擁護，并開始自我內部審查。

　　主要詞匯：

　　l bonus/incentives scheme 激勵機制

　　l payment protection insurance, endowments, pensions 這些都是銀行業的理財產品針對的方向。

　　l prioritise 優先考慮

　　l enforcement division 執法部門

　　這篇文章沿襲了高口閱讀部分針砭時弊、緊跟趨勢的特點。由于援引新聞報道，因此文章的脈絡采用”倒金字塔”結構，即，文章一開始開門見山，概括主要思想，然后逐層展開，將故事來龍去脈娓娓道來。

　　附：全文供參考

　　City watchdog blames bonus culture for corrupting bank services

　　says incentive schemes are likely to drive staff to mis-sell, after finding 'serious failings' in study of 22 financial institutions

　　The City watchdog has ordered banks to put an end to their bonus culture, in a report that blames staff incentives for corrupting the services they provide and leading to millions of consumers being missold investments and insurance policies.

　　Many if not all of the recent mis-selling scandals over products including payment protection insurance (PPI), endowments and pensions had come about because of the way companies rewarded sales rather than service, the FSA said.

　　The watchdog investigated the incentive and bonus schemes at 22 financial firms, and uncovered a range of "serious failings".

　　It is understood that the worst were at Lloyds Banking Group, which has been referred to the FSA's enforcement division. This could result in the group, which is 40% owned by the government, facing a fine of billions of pounds. Lloyds has already set aside more than £3.5bn to cover compensation payments.

　　Martin Wheatley, the FSA's managing director, said banks used to be a place "where you would go in, stand in a queue and have a pleasant chat with the clerk", but some time ago financial institutions had changed their view of consumers "from someone to serve to someone to sell to".

　　The FSA has ordered firms to drop such sales tactics in favour of schemes that put the customer first, and said bank bosses should "take a real interest in fixing this". If firms failed to comply, the watchdog said, it was prepared to introduce new rules cracking down on bonus schemes that prioritise sales.

　　"What we found is not pretty," Wheatley said. "Most of the incentive schemes we looked at were likely to drive people to mis-sell in order to meet targets and receive a bonus, and these risks were not being properly managed."

　　He said he had ruled out getting rid of incentive schemes altogether, but banks would be expected to properly consider whether their incentive schemes increased the risk of mis-selling.

　　"I want to draw a line in the sand and use the report we are publishing today to set out our expectations," he said. "CEO's are ultimately accountable for the way their staff are incentivised, so we expect them to take a real interest in fixing this."

　　Where a recurring problem was identified, banks would be expected to investigate, take action and pay compensation, the FSA said. In the past, incidents of misselling have often been left to the watchdog and consumer bodies to identify and act upon.

　　Firms have until the end of October to submit their views on the guidance, and Wheatley said he expected them to start to clean up their act immediately.

　　Lloyds would not confirm whether it had been referred to the FSA's enforcement division, but said in a statement that it had made "significant changes" to its incentive schemes since the beginning of the year. It said it had been " working closely with [the FSA], keeping them updated on our progress and to ensure the changes we have made to the schemes are appropriate."

　　Richard Lloyd, the Which? executive director, said that the FSA's findings supported his organisation's view that most banks had incentive schemes that prioritised sales.

　　"This must change. It is clear that the light touch regulation of the past has not worked. We want to see the FSA rigorously enforcing the rules and taking tough action against those banks that continue to let their customers down," he said.

　　Figures released by the banks last week showed that customer complaints soared in the first half of this year, due to increasing numbers of cases relating to the mis-selling of PPI. Lloyds received around 860,000 complaints in the first six months, a 145% increase on a year ago. Complaints to NatWest doubled year-on-year, while those to Barclays rose by 80%.

　　Incentive schemes

　　The FSA found that firms were using a wide range of sales incentive schemes to encourage their staff to part consumers from their cash. These included:

　　• A "first past the post" system whereby the first 21 sales staff to reach a target could earn a "super bonus" of £10,000.

　　• Basic salaries for sales staff could move up or down by more than £10,000 a year depending on how much they sold.

　　• Sales staff could earn a bonus of 100% of their basic salary for the sale of loans and PPI – if they sold PPI to at least half of their customers.

　　• Advisers were paid commission on products sold over the course of the year. If they reached a series of targets, they could lock in an enhanced commission of up to 35% for the whole of the next year.

　　• One firm excessively incentivised sales of one product type over another, where that product was more profitable. Staff could therefore earn bigger bonuses by selling one particular product, even if it was wrong for the customer.

　　第二篇選自2012年10月17日《華爾街日報》， 與本次高口聽力Passage Translation部分應該出自同一作者手筆。 這篇文章中規中矩的高口閱讀，這樣的文章一般都沿襲以下的套路：

　　開頭部分：文章會告訴我們發生在歐美國家的某個社會爭議，在本文中，爭議內容是，美國部分州取消了2001年的的一項議案，即學生有權利選擇單一性別學校。 該爭議又落俗套地涉及美國兩黨執政理念的爭論。

　　第二步：再次強調爭議兩方的觀點和立場。本文中，反對單一性別學校的觀點是，這樣的教育將強化了人們對不同性別刻板印象：男生數學好，女生要加強家政學習，與此同時，這樣的教育方式帶歧視性，因而違法。支持方用對比試驗結果為證據，證明單一性別教育成績顯赫，男生女生們都揚長避短。

　　文章結論部分：單一性別學校作為教育選擇，將繼續進行。因為這關系到美國教育質量問題。

　　全文幾乎沒有新單詞。高口同學應該能順利閱讀全文。

　　順便提醒，正如杰叔上課反復強調， 由于中高口考試出題者為在校老師，而考試者以在校學生為主，因此，涉及教育的話題理所當然的為考試重點。

　　附： 全文供參考

　　A Right to Choose Single-Sex Public Education

　　By KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON And BARBARA MIKULSKI

　　Education proponents across the political spectrum were dismayed by recent attempts to eradicate the single-gender options in public schools in Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Maine and Florida. We were particularly troubled at efforts to thwart education choice for American students and their families because it is a cause we have worked hard to advance.

　　Studies have shown that some students learn better in a single-gender environment, particularly in math and science. But federal regulations used to prevent public schools from offering that option. So in 2001 we joined with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Susan Collins to author legislation that allowed public schools to offer single-sex education. It was an epic bipartisan battle against entrenched bureaucracy, but well worth the fight.

　　Since our amendment passed, thousands of American children have benefited. Now, though, some civil libertarians are claiming that single-sex public-school programs are discriminatory and thus illegal.

　　To be clear: The 2001 law did not require that children be educated in single-gender programs or schools. It simply allowed schools and districts to offer the choice of single-sex schools or classrooms, as long as opportunities were equally available to boys and girls. In the vast and growing realm of education research, one central tenet has been confirmed repeatedly: Children learn in different ways. For some, single-sex classrooms make all the difference.

　　Critics argue that these programs promote harmful gender stereotypes. Ironically, it is exactly these stereotypes that the single-sex programs seek to eradicate.

　　As studies have confirmed - and as any parent can tell you - negative gender roles are often sharpened in coeducational environments. Boys are more likely, for instance, to buy into the notion that reading isn't masculine when they're surrounded by (and showing off for) girls.

　　Girls, meanwhile, have made so much progress in educational achievement that women are overrepresented in postgraduate education. But they still lag in the acquisition of bachelor's and graduate degrees in math and the sciences. It has been demonstrated time and again that young girls are more willing to ask and answer questions in classrooms without boys.

　　A 2008 Department of Education study found that "both principals and teachers believed that the main benefits of single-sex schooling are decreasing distractions to learning and improving student achievement." The gender slant - the math-is-for-boys, home-EC-is-for-girls trope - is eliminated.

　　In a three-year study in the mid-2000s, researchers at Florida's Stetson University compared the performance of single-gender and mixed-gender classes at an elementary school, controlling for the likes of class sizes, demographics and teacher training. When the children took the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (which measures achievement in math and literacy, for instance), the results were striking: Only 59% of girls in mixed classes were scored as proficient, while 75% of girls in single-sex ones achieved proficiency. Similarly, 37% of boys in coeducational classes scored proficient, compared with 86% of boys in the all-boys classes.

　　Booker T. Washington High School in Memphis, Tenn., the winner of the 2011 Race to the Top High School Commencement Challenge, went to a 81.6% graduation rate in 2010 from a graduation rate of 55% in 2007. Among the changes at the school? Implementing all-girls and all-boys freshman academies.

　　In Dallas, the all-boys Barack Obama Leadership Academy opened its doors last year. There is every reason to believe it will follow the success of the first all-girls public school, Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School, which started in 2004. Irma Rangel, which has been a Texas Education Agency Exemplary School since 2006, also took sixth place at the Dallas Independent School District's 30th Annual Mathematics Olympiad that year.

　　No one is arguing that single-sex education is the best option for every student. But it is preferable for some students and families, and no one has the right to deny them an option that may work best for a particular child. Attempts to eliminate single-sex education are equivalent to taking away students' and parents' choice about one of the most fundamentally important aspects of childhood and future indicators of success - a child's education.

　　America once dominated educational attainment among developed countries, but we have fallen disastrously in international rankings. As we seek ways to offer the best education for all our children, in ways that are better tailored to their needs, it seems not just counterproductive but damaging to reduce the options. single-sex education in public schools will continue to be a voluntary choice for students and their families. To limit or eliminate single-sex education is irresponsible. To take single-sex education away from students who stand to benefit is unforgivable.

　　Ms. Hutchison, a Republican, is the senior senator from Texas. Ms. Mikulski, a Democrat, is the senior senator from Maryland.

　　雖話題并不高深，但文章難詞比較多，思維方式跳躍。

　　Where’s the ‘freedom’ in the freedom to abuse?

　　Freedom of expression in the West is hokum, I say. It’s hypocrisy dressed up as high virtue. Worse still, it is now used as a missile aimed mainly at Muslims. Freedoms are sacred and easily snatched by the powerful and Authoritarian states like Saudi Arabia and China and many others remain unenlightened because they suppress the human voice. But I also believe that freedom without responsibility and sensitivity amounts to anarchy. 文章開明宗義，告訴我們沒有責任心的言論自由是虛偽的，這與無政府主義無異。

　　很好的一句句子：

　　it is a blessing to live in a country where prime ministers and princes are berated with impunity.

　　(如果)生活在一個能夠謾罵首相和皇室成員，卻不受懲罰的國度，真是一件神賜予的好事。

　　As do those European nations which have collectively agreed that Holocaust denial is an offence, that minorities should be protected from hate speech, that individuals have the right to privacy and legal protection against libel, that big businesses must be allowed to keep information confidential, as can governments, defence companies and Nato. There are also the constraints that have crept in over the decades: Muslims thinking evil thoughts or reading about them are now tried and some are jailed; influential folk can buy silence about their affairs and journalists self-censor for an easy life. The Chief Whip, who allegedly called a police officer a “ pleb”, is finding out he wasn’t really free to do that. Quite a list of limitations eh?

　　文章先從談論了以言論自由為由，很多不能做的事情，暗示穆斯林卻被設定了雙重標準。

　　這一段運用了排比，長短句相交替，語氣迫切。 其中 Pleb 這樣的詞，可以判斷是一個侮辱性語言，無需搞清楚具體是什么。

　　Libertarians proclaiming freedom of expression as an ABSOLUTE, NON-NEGOTIABLE, BEAUTIFUL Western value say nothing or little on any of those restrictions. If that manifesto was real, Kate Middleton would have to put up and shut about those pictures, David Irving, the anti-Semitic historian, would be allowed to publish his revolting spiel and not be imprisoned as he was in 2006 in Austria, and we would have no libel or defamation laws. Racist landlords would put “No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs” notices on their windows. Disabled and gay people would be liberally abused on trains and buses, and paedophilic material would be sold in corner shops.

　　順延了這樣無責任心的自由言論，會帶來社會無序。其中的一些生詞考生可以無視，都是在說社會無序現象的具體表現形式。

　　其中anti-semitic 反猶太主義。這樣的詞可能在中國并不常用，但在美國卻是一大禁忌，與之相關的是Zionist 猶太復國者，也是高口閱讀常見詞匯。

　　Paedophilic material 孌童內容

　　None of that is permitted because in good societies there have to be formal and unofficial curbs on what can be said, published or broadcast and sometimes freedom has to give way. I agree with the DPP that senders of silly tweets and tasteless jokes should not be prosecuted but surely we still need to take care when communicating with the world.

　　這一段說，政府應該針對無責任心的自由言論采取行動。 Tweets 推特，為下文中internet freedom 做了鋪墊。

　　With Muslims, there is no restraint or even fairness. Charlie Hebdo, the satirical magazine in France which printed demeaning cartoons of Prophet Mohamed, wanted trouble, so its editor could appear a really big man. And because many Muslims are instantly and irrationally aroused to extreme frenzy ( as I wrote last week) he expected it all to go off and the rag to make money and martyrs.

　　這一段譴責政府的雙重標準，針對穆斯林的不負責言論，難道就可以免受處罰嗎?

　　extreme frenzy 極端瘋狂

　　They don’t provoke Jews, Hindus, or Christians to test the muscles of their liberalism and actually are pretty rubbish at accepting criticism themselves

　　Well, it didn’t happen. French Muslims were banned from demonstrating, denied that democratic right. The anti-Islam internet film made by some dodgy Americans (we think) got the fire and fury it wanted. Throngs came out, people died, for no good reason, on either side. Now we find that some Libyans have come out against the murderous mobs and for the American Ambassador and other victims, even for America itself. Not what was expected, a terrible disappointment for the Westerners who feel especially good about themselves when they can get many of my brethren to behave madly or very, very badly, which they do, too often.

　　這一段提到的是法國穆斯林被公開侮辱，但是卻不能上街游行抗議，赤裸裸的歧視。

　　Muslims need to calm down, grow up, learn to debate and become more self-aware. Western liberals who feel they have a duty to incite Muslims need self-awareness too and a bit of honesty. They don’t provoke Jews, Hindus, or Christians to test the muscles of their liberalism and actually are pretty rubbish at accepting criticism themselves.

　　We have recently had a lot of Salman Rushdie, too much, like three plates of biryani. A memoir, hagiographic TV programme, a film of Midnight’s Children, luvvie tributes have affirmed his eminence. This novelist of exceptional talent and imagination spent the best years of his life living with fear and trauma. He is entitled to be angry for ever. But as he stands for freedom of expression, he should live by it. Mr Rushdie finds that very hard.

　　In his book he turns on anyone with nuanced views of the Satanic Verses crisis or, like John Major and civil servants, didn’t give in to his many demands. Sarcastically dismissed is this newspaper, apparently a “house journal for British Muslims”, while serious writers who were critical of him – Arundhati Roy, Louis de Bernières, John le Carré – are roundly trashed. Rushdie, a god of liberalism, proves that words and images hurt.

　　這三段都是呼吁穆斯林理性抗議，不要落人口舌。第二段中，有很多生僻詞，biryani, luvvie，都是虛晃一槍，虛張聲勢，直接無視。 Three plates of biryani，可以判斷肯定是一道菜。Luvvie tributes 可以跳過，直接理解a film of midnight children have affirmed his eminence. 這里的his肯定就是指Salman Rushdie. 用他做例子，肯定是反面教育，信號是：too much.

　　They do, which is why we tell our children to watch what they say. The internet is almost absolutely free and look how ugly and frightening that space is becoming. Imagine all that poison coursing through the real world. It may well happen, and then maybe the most fanatical libertarians will think about the consequences of feral, uncontained, goading freedom. But by that time it will be too late.

　　最后一段，呼吁政府監管不負責任的網絡言論，教育孩子應該如何言談舉止，不要等到為時已晚，懊悔不已。