Past Simple утвердит предлож. V2 = Past form вопросит предлож
жүктеу/скачать 460 Kb.
|
- Бұл бет үшін навигация:
- Unit 12 Making Summaries.
- Unit 13 Students’ Conference
- Unit 14 The Exam Is Round The Corner Text 1
Test 4. Translate the sentences.
Test 5. Translate the sentences.
Unit 12 Making Summaries. This type of work is not difficult if you follow a system. One possible approach is to go through the following steps: 1. Read through the text from beginning to end, underlining all the points which should come into your answer. Do this very carefully. And be sure not to miss anything. 2. Make a list of notes, in which you reproduce very briefly in your own words all the points you have underlined. A good list is long from top to bottom (it has plenty of points in it), but short from left to right (each point is expressed very briefly). 3. Without looking at the original text, join these points together into a paragraph. Change the order of the points if necessary, to make the construction more logical.
The object of this study/ paper is… The aim/ purpose of this report is…
It is interesting/ surprising/ strange that… According to the author of the paper… The author mentions/ speculates that… The author speculates on/ about (why/ what…) He explains that… He argues that…
Secondly… In the end… At the end of the study/ article… Finally… Consequently… In general… On the whole… In conclusion… To sum up… In my view/ opinion
therefore, however, though, since, at first, then, next, but, nevertheless, in spite of, furthermore, moreover. Unit 13 Students’ Conference A students’ conference is a kind of role play. Its aim is to motivate students to speak in front of the audience, learn how to share ideas and discuss things. It is desirable to divide the group into two teams which would come up with competing ideas: theories, approaches or estimates. A group of three or four would act as a panel of scientists or a jury - group of lay members of public. These people are to listen, ask questions and at the end of the discussion they are supposed to speak in favour of one of the teams. They should explain why a particular standpoint seemed more solid and the arguments of its advocates turned out more convincing. The discussion is organized by Chairperson, who is in charge of making a list of speakers, presenting the participants and looking after the time limit for the talks. He or she also opens and closes the discussion. The speakers are not allowed to read their papers. Put your notes aside, look at your audience, get them interested, win the people’s attention! Divide your talk into logical parts to help your listeners follow the arguments. Start by saying what the talk is about and/or how you gathered the information. Explain why you think this problem is urgent or interesting. Begin with an interesting introduction – an example, perhaps, or a question. End with an overall comment or a conclusion which gives a summary of the situation. If you feel that some terms or notions might be unfamiliar to your group-mates, explain their meanings before you start. Use posters, graphs, tables, etc to make your talk interesting and comprehensible. Conference terminology. 1. semi-annual conference – конференция, проводимая раз в полгода topical conference – тематическая конференция to attend/ participate in/ take part in a conference
panelist – член специального комитета 4. speaker – докладчик 5. round table discussion panel discussion – дискуссия специалистов в присутствии аудитории 6. paper – доклад background/ principle paper – основной доклад contributed paper – доклад, заявленный по инициативе участника
to attend a session to chair/ preside over a session to hold/ run a session 9. agenda – повестка дня to propose/ adopt an agenda 10. Chairing a discussion: May I have your attention, please? The topic of the discussion is… I give the floor to … I would like you to speak up, please, Dr.N. I’d ask the speaker to be brief. Keep to the point, please. With this I close the discussion.
I have some doubts about that It is an attractive idea, but… I don’t agree/ I disagree with… I can hardly agree with… That’s exactly what I object to! Our findings show the opposite. I have a comment/ a remark on… I would like to call your attention to… I am going to enlarge the arguments of… I would like to summarize a few points…
Read the text. Get ready to reproduce it. Write an English-Russian translation of the part marked with asterisks. Extracted from “How To Blow Up A Star” by Wolfgang Hillebrandt, et.al. On November 11, 1572, Danish astronomer and nobleman Tycho Brahe saw a new star in the constellation Cassiopeia, blazing as bright as Jupiter. In many ways, it was the birth of modern astronomy. Such “new stars” have not ceased to surprise. In 1934 Fritz Zwicky of the California Institute of Technology coined the name “supernovae” for them. Quite apart from being among the most dramatic events known to science, supernovae play a special role in the universe and in the work of astronomers: seeding space with heavy elements, regulating galaxy formation and evolution, even serving as markers of cosmic regulation. Zwicky and his colleague Walter Baade speculated that the explosive energy comes from gravity. An alternative emerged in 1960, when Fred Hoyle of the University of Cambridge and Willy Fowder of Caltech conceived of the explosions as giant nuclear bombs. * When a sunlike star exhausts its hydrogen fuel and then its helium, it turns to its carbon and oxygen. Not only can the fusion of these elements release a titanic pulse of energy, it produces radioactive nickel 56, whose gradual decay would account for the months-long after-glow of the initial explosion. Both these ideas have proved to be right. Of the supernovae that show no signs of hydrogen in their spectra (designated type I), most (type Ia) appear to be thermonuclear explosions, and the rest (types Ib and Ic) result from the collapse of stars that had shed their outer hydrogen layers. Supernovae whose spectra include hydrogen (type II) are thought to arise from collapse as well. Both mechanisms reduce an entire star to a shell of gaseous debris, and gravitational collapse events also leave behind a hyperdense neutron star or, in extreme cases, a black hole. Even so, explaining supernovae is still a major challenge for astrophysicists. Computer simulations have had trouble reproducing the explosions, let alone their detailed properties. It is reassuringly hard to get stars to explode. They regulate themselves, remaining very stable for millions or billions of years. Even dead or dying stars have mechanisms causing them to peter out rather than blowing up. Figuring out how these mechanisms are overcome has taken multidimensional simulations that push computers to, and beyond, their limits. Only very recently has the situation improved.*
Read the text. Get ready to reproduce it. Write an English-Russian translation of the part marked with asterisks. Extracted from “ The Nuclear Option” by John M. Deutch et.al. Nuclear power supplies a sixth of the world’s electricity. Along with hydropower (which supplies slightly more than a sixth), it is the major source of “carbon-free” energy today. The technology suffered growing pains, seared into the public’s mind by the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents, but plants have demonstrated remarkable reliability and efficiency recently. The world’s ample supply of uranium could fuel a much larger fleet of reactors than exists today throughout their 40- to 50-year life span. In 2003 we co-chaired a major Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) study, The Future of Nuclear Power, that analyzed what would be required to retain the nuclear option. That study described a scenario whereby worldwide nuclear power generation could triple to one million megawatts by the year 2050, * If nuclear power is to expand by such an extent, what kind of nuclear plants should be built? A chief consideration is the fuel cycle, which can be either open or closed. In an open fuel cycle, also known as a once-through cycle, the uranium is “burned” once in a reactor, and spent fuel is stored in geologic repositories. The spent fuel includes plutonium that could be chemically extracted and turned into fuel for use in another nuclear plant. Doing that results in a closed fuel cycle, which some people advocate. Some countries, most notably France, currently use a closed fuel cycle in which plutonium is separated from the spent fuel and a mixture of plutonium and uranium oxides is subsequently burned again. A longer-term option could involve recycling all the transuranics (plutonium is one example of a transuranic element), perhaps in a so-called fast reactor. In this approach, nearly all the very long lived components of the waste are eliminated, thereby transforming the nuclear waste debate. Substantial research and development is needed, however, to work through daunting technical and economic challenges … Recycling waste for reuse in a closed cycle might seem like a no-brainer: less raw material is used for the same total power output, and the problem of long-term storage of waste is alleviated because a smaller amount of radioactive material must be stored for many thousands of years. Nevertheless, we believe that an open cycle is to be preferred over the next several decades. * The type of reactor that will continue to dominate for at least two decades, probably longer, is the light-water reactor, which uses ordinary water, containing deuterium as the coolant and moderator. The vast majority of plants in operation in the world today are of this type, making it a mature, well-understood technology. Text 3 Read the text. Get ready to reproduce it. Write an English-Russian translation of the part marked with asterisks. Extracted from “ The Nuclear Option” by John M. Deutch et.al. Based on previous experience, electricity from new nuclear plants is currently more expensive than that from new coal- or gas-powered plants. The 2003 M.I.T. study estimated that new light-water reactors would produce electricity at a cost of 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. That figure includes all the costs of a plant, spread over its life span, and includes items such as an acceptable return to investors. In comparison, under equivalent assumptions we estimate that a new coal plant would produce electricity at a cost of 4.2 cents per kilowatt-hour. For a new gas-powered plant, the cost is very sensitive to the price of natural gas and would be about 5.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for today’s high gas prices. * Some people will be skeptical about how well the cost of nuclear power can be estimated, given past overoptimism, going back to claims in the early days that nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter”. Some might also question the uncertainties inherent in such cost projections. The important point is that the estimates place the three alternatives – nuclear, coal and gas – on a level playing field, and there is no reason to expect unanticipated contingencies to favor one over the other. Furthermore, when utilities are deciding what kind of power plant to build, they will base their decisions on such estimates. Several steps could reduce the cost of the nuclear option below our baseline figure of 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. A 25 percent reduction in construction expenses would bring the cost of electricity down to 5.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Reducing the construction time of a plant from five to four years and improvements in operation and maintenance can shave off a further 0.4 cent per kilowatt-hour. How any plant is financed can depend dramatically on what regulations govern the plant site. Reducing the cost of capital for a nuclear plant to be the same as for a gas or coal plant would close the gap with coal (4.2 cents per kilowatt-hour). All these reductions in cost of nuclear power are plausible but not yet proved. *
Read the text. Get ready to reproduce it. Write an English-Russian translation of the part marked with asterisks. Extracted from “ The Nuclear Option” by John M. Deutch et.al. The second big obstacle that a nuclear renaissance faces is the problem of waste management. No country in the world has yet implemented a system for permanently disposing of the spent fuel and other radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants. The most widely favored approach is geologic disposal, in which waste is stored in chambers hundreds of meters underground. The goal is to prevent leakage of the waste for many millennia through a combination of engineered barriers (e.g. the waste containers) and geologic ones (the natural rock structure where the chamber has been excavated and the favorable characteristics of the hydrogeologic basin). Decades of studies support the geologic disposal option. Scientists have a good understanding of the processes and events that could transport radionuclides from the repository to the biosphere. Despite this scientific confidence, the process of approving a geologic site remains fraught with difficulties. * A prime case in point is the proposed facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which has been under construction for two decades. Recently the site was found to have considerably more water than anticipated. It remains uncertain whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will license the site. Delays in resolving waste management (even if it is approved, it is unlikely that Yucca Mountain will be accepting waste before 2015) may complicate efforts to construct new power plants. Perhaps the first country to build a permanent storage site for its high-level nuclear waste will be Finland. In Olkiluoto, the location of two nuclear reactors, excavation has begun on an underground research facility called Onkalo. If all goes according to plan and the necessary government licenses are obtained, the first canisters of waste could be emplaced in 2020. By 2130 the repository would be complete, and the access routes would be filled and sealed. To address the waste management problem in the U.S., the government should take title to the spent fuel stored at commercial reactor sites across the country and consolidate it at one or more federal storage sites until a permanent disposal facility is built. The waste can be temporarily stored safely and securely for an extended period. Such extended temporary storage, perhaps even for as long as 100 years, should be an integral part of the disposal strategy. *
Read the text. Get ready to reproduce it. Write an English-Russian translation of the part marked with asterisks. Extracted from “The Nuclear Option” by John M. Deutch et.al. In conjunction with the domestic program of waste management just outlined, the President should continue the diplomatic effort to create an international system of fuel supplier countries and user countries. Supplier countries such as the U.S., Russia, France and the U.K. would sell fresh fuel to user countries with smaller nuclear programs and commit to removing the spent fuel from them. In return, the user countries would forgo the construction of fuel-producing facilities. This arrangement would greatly alleviate the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation because the chief risks for proliferation involve not the nuclear power plants themselves but the fuel enrichment and reprocessing plants. The current situation with Iran’s uranium enrichment program is a prime example. A scheme in which fuel is leased to users is a necessity in a world where nuclear power is to expand threefold, because such an expansion will inevitably involve the spread of nuclear plants to some countries of proliferation concern. * A key to making the approach work is that producing fuel does not make economic sense for small nuclear power programs. This fact underlies the marketplace reality that the world is already divided into supplier and user countries. Although the proposed regime is inherently attractive to user nations – they get an assured supply of cheap fuel and are relieved of the problem of dealing with waste materials – other incentives should also be put in place because the user states would be agreeing to go beyond the requirements of the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. Iran is the most obvious example today of a nation that the global community would rather see as a “user state” than as a producer of enriched uranium. But it is not the only difficult case. Another nation whose program must be addressed promptly is Brazil, where an enrichment facility is under construction supposedly to provide fuel for the country’s two nuclear reactors. A consistent approach to countries such as Iran and Brazil will be needed if nuclear power is to be expanded globally without exacerbating proliferation concerns. *
Extracted from “Did Life Come From Another World?” by David Warmflash et.al. Most scientists have long assumed that life on Earth is a homegrown phenomenon. According to the conventional hypothesis, the earliest living cells emerged as a result of chemical evolution on our planet billions of years ago in a process called abiogenesis. The alternative possibility – that living cells or their precursors arrived from space – strikes many people as science fiction. Developments over the past decade, however, have given new credibility to the idea that Earth’s biosphere could have arisen from an extraterrestrial seed. * Planetary scientists have learned that early in its history our solar system could have included many worlds with liquid water, the essential ingredient for life as we know it. Recent data from NASA’s Mars Exploration Rovers corroborate previous suspicions that water has at least intermittently flowed on the Red Planet in the past. It is not unreasonable to hypothesize that life existed on Mars long ago and perhaps continues there. Life may have also evolved on Europa, Jupiter’s fourth-largest moon, which appears to possess liquid water under its icy surface. Saturn’s biggest satellite, Titan, rich in organic compounds; given the moon’s frigid temperatures, it would be highly surprising to find living forms there, but they cannot be ruled out. Life may have even gained a toehold on torrid Venus. The Venusian surface is probably too hot and under too much atmospheric pressure to be habitable, but the planet could conceivably support microbial life high in its atmosphere. And, most likely, the surface conditions on Venus were not always so harsh. Venus may have once been similar to early Earth. It is not implausible that life could have arisen on Mars and then come to Earth, or reverse. Researchers are now intently studying the transport of biological materials between planets to get a better sense of whether it ever occurred. This effort may shed light on some of modern science’s most compelling questions: Where and how did life originate? Are radically different forms of life possible? And how common is life in the universe? * Text 7 Read the text. Get ready to reproduce it. Write an English-Russian translation of the part marked with asterisks. Extracted from “The Amateur Scientist” By Jearl Walker Can the distance to the sun be determined without optical instruments or any other modern equipment? Joseph L. Gerver of Rutgets University has devised a method by which a lower limit can be placed on the mean separation between the earth and the sun. He needs no more than paper, pens and a ruler. A star map is convenient but not essential. With these simple materials and much patience Gerver ascertained that the sun must be at least 65 million kilometers away, which is about half the actual mean distance of 150 million kilometers. * Gerver’s scheme involves observing a meteor as it penetrates the earth’s atmosphere. A meteor, which is debris from a comet or a chunk of material from the asteroid belts, heats up rapidly as it falls through the atmosphere, becoming so hot that its glow is visible from the ground. Nearly all meteors burn up before they leave the upper atmosphere. Gerver’s method is to determine a meteor’s speed with respect to the earth by dividing the duration of the glow into the length of the meteor trail. If the meteor is orbiting the sun, the upper limit to its speed with respect to the sun is related to the earth’s speed around the sun. By measuring the meteor’s speed through the atmosphere you can calculate the earth’s speed and then the radius of the earth’s orbit of the sun. Gerver’s method is put into practice during a time of meteor showers. To apply the method you should arrange for several observers to be separated from one another by tens of kilometers. Have them record the time and duration of any meteor they sight and also mark the path of the meteors on a star map. The duration of a meteor burn should be timed by a chant such as “One one thousand, two one thousand” and so on to count off the seconds. Later examine the collected data for any common sighting. If you find one, you can employ the relative positions of the observers and their measurements of the meteor to calculate the height of the meteor’s end point, which is where it was last seen. * At this stage Gerver introduces a check on the results. From the computed end point and the observers’ perspectives of it he calculates the compass headings between the observers. If the calculated headings approximate the true ones, he knows he is on the right track. жүктеу/скачать 460 Kb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|