Directions: Read the following passage carefully and then translate
the underlined sentences into Chinese.
71. Science is often hard to read. Most people assume that
its difficulties are born out of necessity, out of the extreme complexity of
scientific concepts, data and analysis. We argue here that complexity of thought
need not lead to impenetrability of expression. We demonstrate a number of
rhetorical principles that can produce clarity in communication without
oversimplifying scientific issues. The results are substantive, not merely
cosmetic. Improving the quality of writing actually improves the quality of
thought. 72. The fundamental purpose of scientific discourse
is not the mere presentation of information and thought, but rather its actual
communication. It does not matter how pleased an author might be to have
converted all the right data into sentences and paragraphs, it matters only
whether a large majority of the reading audience accurately perceives what the
author had in mind. Therefore, in order to understand how best to improve
writing, we would do well to understand better how readers go about reading.
Such an understanding has recently become available through work done in the
fields of rhetoric, linguistics and cognitive psychology. It has helped to
produce a methodology based on the concept of reader expectations.
73. Readers do not simply read, they interprent. Any piece of article,
no matter how short, may "mean" in 10 ( or more) different ways to 10 different
readers. This methodology of reader expectations is founded on the recognition
that readers make many of their most important interpretive decisions about the
substance of an article based on clues they receive from its
structure. This interplay between substance and structure
can be demonstrated by something as basic as a simple table. Let us say that in
tracking the temperature of a liquid over a period of time, an investigator
takes measurements every three minutes and records a list of temperatures. Those
data could be presented by a number of written structures.