新编英语教程5下ANEWENGLISHCOURSELEVEL5(Unit815课文整理).doc

Unit 8TEXT I （P 97）Why Nothing Works Marvin Harris1 According to a law attributed to the savant known only as Murphy: "if anything can go wrong, it will." Corollaries to Murphy's Law suggest themselves as clues to the shoddy goods problem: If anything can break down, it will; if anything can fall apart, it will; if anything can stop running, it will. While Murphy's Law can never be wholly defeated, its effects can usually be postponed. Much of human existence consists of effects aimed at making sure that things don't go wrong, fall apart, break down, or stop running until a decent interval has elapsed after their manufacture. Forestalling Murphy's Law as applied to products demands intelligence, skill, and commitment. If those human inputs assisted by special quality-control instruments, machines, and scientific sampling procedures, so much the better. But gadgets and sampling alone will never do the trick since these items are also subject to Murphy's Law. Quality-control instruments need maintenance; gauges go out of order; X'rays and laser beams need adjustments. No matter how advanced the technology, quality demands intelligent, motivated human thought and action.2 Some reflection about the material culture of prehistoric and preindustrial peoples may help to show what I mean. A single visit to a museum which displays artifacts used by simple preindustrial societies is sufficient to dispel the notion that quality is dependent on technology. Artifacts may be of simple, even primitive design, and yet be built to serve their intended purpose in a reliable manner during a lifetime of use. We acknowledge this when we honor the label "handmade" and pay extra for the jewelry, sweaters, and handbags turned out by the dwindling breeds of modern-day craftspeople. 3 What is the source of quality that one finds, let us say, in a Pomo Indian basket so tightly woven that it was used it hold boiling water and never leaked a drop, or in an Eskimo skin boat with its matchless combination of lightness, strength, and seaworthiness? Was it merely the fact that these items were handmade? I don't think so. In unskilled or uncaring hands a handmade basket or boat can fall apart as quickly as baskets or boats made by machines. I rather think that the reason we honor the label "handmade" is because it evokes not a technological relationship between producer and consumer. Throughout prehistory it was the fact that producers and consumers were either one and the same individuals or close kin that guaranteed the highest degree of reliability and durability in manufactured items. Men made their own spears, bows and arrows, and projectile points; women wove their baskets and carrying nets, fashioned their own clothing from animal skins, bark, or fiber. Later, as technology advanced and material culture grew more complex, different members of the band or village adopted craft specialists such as pottery-making, basket-weaving, or canoe-building. Although many items were obtained through barter and trade, the connection between producer and consumer still remained intimate, permanent, and caring.4 A man is not likely to fashion a spear for himself whose point will fall off in mid-flight; nor is a woman who weaves her own basket likely to make it out of rotted straw. Similarly, if one is sewing a parka for a husband who is about to go hunting for the family with the temperature at sixty below, all stitches will be perfect. And when the men who make boats are the uncles and fathers of those who sail them, they will be as seaworthy as the state of the art permits.5 In contrast, it is very hard for people to care about strangers or about products to be used by strangers. In our era of industrial mass production and mass marketing, quality is a constant problem because the intimate sentimental and personal bonds which once made us responsible to each other and to our products have withered away and been replaced by money relationships. Not only are the producers and consumers strangers but the women and men involved in various stages of production and distribution - management, the worker on the factory floor, the office help, the salespeople -are also strangers to each other. In larger companies there may be hundreds of thousands of people all working on the same product who can never meet face-to-face or learn one anothers names. The larger the company and the more complex its division of labor, the greater the sum of uncaring relationships and hence the greater the effect of Murphy's Law. Growth adds layer on layer of executives, foremen, engineers, production workers, and sales specialists to the payroll. Since each new employee contributes a diminished share to the overall production process, alienation from the company and its product are likely to increase along with the neglect or even purposeful sabotage of quality standards.From: G. Levin, 1987,pp.94-97.TEXT II （P 103）The Plot Against People  Russell Baker1. Inanimate objects are classified scientifically into three major categoriesthose that break down, those that get lost, and those that dont work. 2. The goal of all inanimate objects is to resist man and ultimately to defeat him, and the three major classifications are based on the method each object uses to achieve its purpose. As a general rule, any object capable of breaking down at the moment when it is most needed will do so. The automobile is typical of the category. 3. With the cunning peculiar to its breed, the automobile never breaks down while entering a 3)filling station which has a large staff of idle mechanics. It waits until it reaches a downtown intersection in the middle of the rush hour, or until it is fully loaded with family and luggage on the 4)Ohio 5)Turnpike. Thus it creates maximum inconvenience, frustration, and irritability, thereby reducing its owners lifespan. 4. Washing machines, garbage disposals, lawn mowers, furnaces, TV sets, tape recorders, 6)slide projectorsall are 7)in league with the automobile to take their turn at breaking down whenever life 8)threatens to flow smoothly for their enemies. 5. Many inanimate objects, of course, find it extremely difficult to break down. 9)Pliers,for example, and gloves and keys are almost totally incapable of breaking down. Therefore, they have had to evolve a different technique for resisting man. 6. They get lost. Science has still not solved the mystery of how they do it, and no man has ever caught one of them in the act. The most 10)plausible theory is that they have developed a secret method of locomotion which they are able to conceal from human eyes. 7. It is not uncommon for a pair of pliers to climb all the way from the cellar to the attic in its single-minded determination to raise its owners blood pressure. Keys have been known to burrow three feet under mattresses. Womens purses, despite their great weight, frequently travel through six or seven rooms to find hiding space under a couch. 8. Scientists have been struck by the fact that things that break down virtually never get lost, while things that get lost hardly ever break down. A furnace, for example, will invariably break down at the depth of the first winter cold wave, but it will never get lost. A womans purse hardly ever breaks down; it almost invariably chooses to get lost. 9. Some persons believe this constitutes evidence that inanimate objects are not entirely hostile to man. After all, they point out, a furnace could infuriate a man even more thoroughly by getting lost than by breaking down, just as a glove could upset him far more by breaking down than by getting lost. 10. Not everyone agrees, however, that this indicates a 11)conciliatory attitude. Many say it merely proves that furnaces, gloves and pliers are incredibly stupid.11. The third class of objectsthose that dont workare the most curious of all. These include such objects as 12)barometers, car clocks, cigarette lighters, flashlights and toy-train locomotives. It is inaccurate, of course, to say that they never work. They work once, usually for the first few hours after being brought home, and then quit. Thereafter, they never work again.12. In fact, it is widely assumed that they are built for the purpose of not working. Some people have reached advanced ages without ever seeing some of these objectsbarometers, for example13)in working order. 13. Science is utterly 14)baffled by the entire ca-tegory. There are many theories about it. The most interesting holds that the things that dont work have attained the highest state possible for an inanimate object, the state to which things that break down and things that get lost can still only aspire. 14. They have truly defeated man by 15)conditioning him never to expect anything of them. When his cigarette lighter wont light or his flashlight fails to illuminate, it does not raise his blood pressure. Objects that dont work have given man the only peace he receives from inanimate society. From: S. S. Webb, pp.279-283.Unit 9TEXT I （P 108）Where Is the News Leading Us? Norman Cousins1 Not long ago I was asked to join in a public symposium on the role of the American press. Two other speakers were included on the program. The first was a distinguished TV anchorman. The other was the editor of one of the nations leading papers, a newsman to the core though , aggressive, and savvy in the ways and means of solid reporting.2 The purpose of the symposium, as I understood it, was to scrutinize the obligations of the media and to suggest the best ways to meet those obligations.3 During the open-discussion period, a gentleman in the audience addressed a question to my two colleagues. Why, he asked, are the newspapers and the television news programs so disaster-prone? Why are newsmen and women so attracted to tragedy, violence, failure?4 The anchorman and editor reached as though they had been blamed for the existence of bad news. Newsmen and newswomen, they said, are only responsible for reporting the news, not for creating it or modifying it5 It didnt seem to me that the newsmen had answered the question. The gentleman who had asked it was not blaming them for the distortions in the world. He was just wondering why distortions are most reported. The news media seem to operate on the philosophy that all news is bad news. Why? Could it be that the emphasis on downside news is largely the result of tradition the way newsmen are accustomed to respond to daily events?6 Perhaps it would be useful here to examine the way we define the world news, for this is where the problem begins. News is supposed to deal with happenings of the past 12 hours - 24 hours at most. Any sniper kills some pedestrians; a terrorist holds 250 people hostage in a plane; OPEC announces a 25 percent increase in petroleum prices; Great Britain devalues by another 10 percent; a truck conveying radioactive wastes collides with a mobile cement mixer.7 Focusing solely on these details, however, produces a misshapen picture. Civilization is a lot more than the sum total of its catastrophes. The most important ingredient in any civilization is progress. But progress doesnt happen all at once. It is not eruptive. Generally, it comes in bits and pieces, very little of it clearly visible at any given moment, but all of involved in the making of historical change for the better.8 It is this aspect of living history that most news reporting reflects inadequately. The result is that we are underinformed about positive developments and overinformed about disasters. This, in turn, leads to a public mood of defeatism and despair, which in themselves tend to be inhibitors of progress. An unrelieved diet of eruptive news depletes the essential human energies a free society needs. A mood of hopelessness and cynicism is hardly likely to furnish the energy needed to meet serious challenges.9 I am not suggesting that “positive” news be contrived as an antidote to the disasters on page one. Nor do I define positive news as in-depth reportage of functions of the local YMCA. What I am trying to get across is the notion that the responsibility of the news media is to search out and report on important events- whether or not they come under the heaven and hell, and both sectors call for attention and scrutiny.10 My hope is that the profession of journalism will soon see its responsibility in a wider perspective. The time has come to consider the existence of a large area of human happenings that legitimately qualify as news. For example, how many news articles have been written about nitrogen-fixation - the process by which plants can be made to “fix” their own nitrogen, thus reducing the need for fertilizer? Scientists all over the world are now pursuing this prospect in the hope of combating famine. How much is known about the revolutionary changes being made in increasing the rice harvest in the Far East? There are literally dozens of similar important development in the world that are worthy of inclusion in any roundup of major new stories.11 The anchorman and editor were right in saying that newsmen and women are not responsible for shaping the world. But they are responsible for affecting our attitudes. We are only what we think we are; we can achieve only those goals we dare to envision. News people provide us with the only picture we have of ourselves and of the world. It had better be a true portrait and not a caricature for it is this picture on which we will base our decisions and around which we will plan our future.12 The journalist, to paraphrase Walter Lippmann, is the publics philosopher. “ The acquired culture,” Lippmann wrote, “is not transmitted in our genes. The good life in the good society, though attainable, is never attained and possessed once and for all. What has been attained will again be lost if the wisdom of the good life in a good society is not transmitted.”13 With an accurate report of the good life in the good society, we can begin to use the news as Bernard de Chartres suggested we use history boosting ourselves up on our experiences, “like dwarfs seated on the shoulders of giants,” enabled, thus, “to see more things than the Americans and things more distant.”From: S.A. Clayes et al, pp.331-333.TEXT II （P 113）Should the Press Be Human Katharine Whitehorn1. If you were asked who shot Lee Harvey Oswald you would probably say Jack Ruby, But there's another possible answer to the question: the photographer who shot those staggering pictures of Ruby gunning him down. And what has teased my mind ever since is wondering whether, if he had dropped his camera and grabbed the gunman, we might, with Oswald alive, know more than we will now ever be able to find out about Why Kennedy died. 2. Journalists and TV people, we know, are supposed to record what goes on;