A good part of the story is told in a very comical and entertaining tone, but as the novel progresses and their marriage begins to disintegrate, the tone becomes more serious and the reader will wish that Ellie and Dan can mend their relationship. Throughout the book, Ellie blames her woes on her mother-in-law, but is Linda really to blame? As a reader, this reviewer had problems agreeing with the way Ellie reacted to the "other woman" in her life, but this was definitely the author's intention. At times Ellie did indeed seem to be behaving like a child and acting unreasonably, not being able to put herself in Linda's shoes. As the reader will find out, sometimes things are not what they seem, and people can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Ellie comes across as very selfish and self-centered in some instances, but was she merely reacting the way any sane woman would to a mother-in-law who is controlling and manipulative?

This is yet another Jane Green novel that this reviewer greatly enjoyed, each one being very different from the last. The author does not seem to use the same "mold" to write each novel, which makes her books a favorite for this reviewer. THE OTHER WOMAN will have one laughing at, but also at times commiserating with, both Ellie and Linda. And, as usual, Green does a wonderful job creating real characters who the reader will relate to or, at the very least, enjoy reading about. She is great at producing stories that revolve around relationships --- whether it is between a man and a woman, or just friends --- and telling the story of a relationship, from beginning to end, complete with all the nuances and intricacies that only the most attentive person will notice. And while it is up to the reader to find out whether or not Dan and Ellie find their "happy ever after," most people will be assured that any novel by Green will be worth reading. This reviewer is always on the lookout for a new novel by her, and highly recommends this one.

   --- Reviewed by Marie Hashima Lofton (Ratmammy@lofton.org)

附录2：欧盟文件中的相关内容

4.The‘two-thirds’rule

As noted,there are three main corrective mechanisms established by the EC Merger Regulation, the first one being the so called‘two-thirds’rule. This rule provides that mergers where each of the parties concerned achieve more than two thirds of their EU-wide turnover in one and the same Member State are not reviewable under the EC Merger Regulation.Between 2001 and 2007 there were at least 126 cases where this rule applied. There were thus few concentrations that met this threshold compared to the overall case load at the Member State level. Unsurprisingly,this rule has mostly been applied in relation to concentrations within large Member States. This is a result of the design of this threshold.It is generally unlikely that two of the parties to the transaction would meet the general turnover thresholds globally and within the EU while still having two thirds of their turnover in a single small Member State.

As regards the substance of these cases,the two-thirds rule has in most cases appropriately distinguished between concentrations having a cross-border impact and those that do not. However, there are a small number of cases with potential cross-border effects in the Community which nevertheless fell under the competence of the NCAs as a result of this rule. The report also gives account of how, in a substantive respect,public interest considerations other than competition policy have been applied in a number of these cases.While the exercise of public interest considerations is a feature in many merger control systems which may well be justified, the report highlights the need for a pan-European merger control regime spanning the EU which ensures the protection of undistorted competition,irrespective of which authority is the reviewing agency.

……

6.Convergence

……

When consulted on the experience gained with regard to multiple filings, a large number of stakeholder-respondents pointed out that they often meet with difficulties and incur additional cost as a result of diverging national merger control rules. Differences exist not only in determining jurisdiction but also between the various procedures.Prime examples are the duration of the jurisdictional thresholds in some Member States and their interpretation of the standstill obligations. Sometimes substantive rules have also been a source of concern. Many stakeholders therefore suggest that, independently of the allocation of cases between the Community and national level,in order to fully achieve the objective of a level playing field in the common market, efforts towards further convergence of the various national rules governing merger control should be pursued to alleviate difficulties encountered when multiple filings are necessary.

……

7.Concluding remarks

The report concludes that, overall, the jurisdictional thresholds and the set of corrective mechanisms established by the EC Merger Regulation have provided an appropriate legal framework for allocating cases between Community and Member State level. It finds that this framework has in most cases been effective in distinguishing cases that have a Community dimension from those with a primarily national nexus. Notwithstanding this, it concludes that there is scope for further improvement in the current system of case allocation in a number of respects. In particular, there are still a relatively large number of mergers that are notified in two or more Member States. There was also a small number of cases dealt with by the Member States under the two-thirds rule, which nevertheless had a potential cross-border impact. Finally, stakeholders have suggested that case allocation between the Commission and the Member States could be improved through more efficient referral mechanisms or by moving towards automatic re-allocation of jurisdiction to the Commission in cases with a cross-border impact. In addition, increased convergence between the national merger control regimes would in their view be beneficial to businesses as it would reduce the costs incurred and the time needed for cross- border mergers. The report is now with the Council.

Topic 1: Distributive justice

话题1：分配公平

How can the distribution of social goods in a society be just? Utopian visionaries throughout history have given answers to this question and, to the extent to which these answers varied, have set off ideological controversies as well as wars. Questions that need to be settled by dogma or force, however, are liable to have no answers at all. Presumably it is this insight that has led many sober-minded students in the fields of sociology, economics and political science to abandon the question of how distributive justice can be realized, replacing it with the question of why the belief in distributive justice is illusory.

一个社会如何分配社会产品才算公平？不同历史时期的空想家们给出了各种答案，甚至由于见解的不同，引发了意识形态斗争，直至兵戎相见。然而，需要诉诸教条或武力的问题，往往根本就不存在答案。大概正是因为意识到了这一点，很多冷静的社会学、经济学和政治学的研究者纷纷放弃如何实现分配公平的问题，转而思考为何关于分配公平的信念仅是一种幻想。

Posed from this perspective the question gains complexity as well as openness. There may be many answers. None of these answers can claim to be the ultimate one but, summed, they may contribute to our understanding of the forces inhibiting or facilitating distributive social justice.

从这个角度看，分配公平的问题显得更加复杂和捉摸不定。这个问题的答案可能有多种。哪个答案都不能自诩为最终答案。但是，把所有答案综合起来看，或许有助于我们理解妨碍或推动社会分配公平的因素。

I attempt to address one of the many aspects of the illusion of distributive justice, focusing on the conceptual distinction between realizing vs. perceiving distributive justice. Distributive social justice is liable to be 'illusory' on both accounts. It can be illusory because, contrary to the beliefs we may have, it may be impossible for the distribution of social goods to be just regardless of what we do. For instance, the 'impossibility theorem', according to which collective social welfare functions cannot be determined, is directed towards the destruction of this type of illusion. Distributive justice, however, can also be illusory because the perception we have of it does not mirror reality adequately.

分配公平在很多方面具有虚幻性，我将重点讨论其中之一，即分配公平的客观实现与分配公平的主观感受两个概念的区别。在这两个层面，社会分配公平都可能是“幻想”。这是因为（这可能与我们的想法相反），无论我们如何努力，或许都不可能实现社会产品的公平分配。比如，阿罗（Arrow）的“难能定理”（根据该定理，集体社会福利函数无法确定）即旨在摧毁此类幻想。另一方面，分配公平具有虚幻性是因为我们对分配公平的主观感受并没有恰当地反映客观现实。[1]

There is a certain causal relationship between the perceptual illusion and the illusory feasibility of distributive justice. Because if we perceive social distributions as just, even though this is not what they are, then nobody will attempt to strive for change. Thus we are left with distributions that are unjust for ever. That is, 'false' perceptions of distributive justice have social consequences that render the realization of distributive justice impossible. (330 words)

主观感受的虚幻性与分配公平的虚幻可行性之间存在着一定的因果关系。因为如果我们感到社会分配是公平的（虽然事实并非如此），就不会有人去尝试改变现状。这样一来，分配便永远处于不公之中。换言之，关于分配公平的“虚假”感受会带来社会后果，那就是让分配公平的目标永远无法实现。

说明：这篇最主要的问题是理解。在不查资料的情况下，很难准确把握原文的意思，找到适当的翻译方法。所以，考试需要一定的运气。碰到自己懂的，就能翻好；碰到不懂的，肯定无法译好。考不好并不意味着做不好翻译。因为做翻译就是一个查资料的过程。在实际翻译过程中，如果不懂，肯定要查清楚的。相反，一个人考得很好，那也可能是运气。如果不懂得查资料，即使侥幸通过考试，将来遇到困难的内容，还是翻译不好。

我在翻译的时候，进行了仔细调查。这篇短文的出处是http://www.jstor.org/pss/522527。这是在完成翻译初稿之后发现的。在发现出处之前，就已经加入了“阿罗”的名字。因为从其他资料看到那个理论是他的理论。后来看到出处里面本来就有Arrow，让我更加感到自己翻译时加入这个人的名字是十分正确的。

Topic 2: Global Warming

话题2 全球变暖

We are now faced with a momentous challenge: global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of our very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations ratified the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. While even developing China has boosted its mileage standards to 35 m.p.g., the U.S. remains the land of the Hummer.

现在我们正面临一项巨大的挑战：全球变暖。地球气候持续恶化，正在演变成一场最紧要的战争，而从任何一个标准来看，美国都在节节败退。美国每年排放的温室气体占全球总量的近25%，并固执地声明它不打算采取大规模的减排措施。虽然有174个国家为降低碳排放水平已经批准了并不完美的京都议定书，可美国却不肯批准。就连发展中的中国也已将燃油经济标准提高到了每加仑35英里，而美国仍是悍马汽车的天下。

The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less consensus on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to naive wish lists that could cripple America's growth. But what would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like—one that would leave us both environmentally safe and economically sound?

最大的困难在于，如果说绝大多数人日益认同气候变化是个全球紧急事件，那么关于解决之道的共识则寥寥无几。工业界提出自己的方案，可惜这些方案通常解决不了什么问题。环保主义者也献策，可惜他们的计策往往过于天真，真要照办的话，就会严重阻碍美国的发展。但是一个大胆、宏伟、有效的方案到底是什么样的呢？如何才能让我们同时拥有安全的环境和良好的经济增长？

Halting climate change will be far harder than even that². One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 50 years. And yet by devising a coherent strategy that mixes short-term solutions with farsighted goals, combines government activism with private-sector enterprise and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of our way of life for future generations. Money will get us part of the way there, but what's needed most is will. (287 words)

阻止气候变化比以上[2]做法要困难得多。较为保守的一个方案呼吁，在未来50年减少250亿吨碳排放。然而，只要制定一致的战略，将短期措施和长远目标结合起来，将政府推动和民间努力结合起来，将务实精神和雄心壮志结合起来，美国就能既不严重损害经济，又帮助遏制气候变化的最坏影响，并保证后代享受我们今天的生活方式。要实现这个目标，金钱将助我们一臂之力，不过最需要的是意愿。

说明：这篇文章按说难度不大。但由于出题者删减了部分内容，文章前后脱节，造成理解困难，比如that指代的内容在文本中无法确定。具有讽刺意味的是，如果译者努力使原文合理化（这是应该做的），例如，把halting climate change will be far harder than even that虚化为“阻止气候变化将面临更多的困难”，反而会翻译错误；而不讲求前后连贯，进行直译的人，反而会翻译得符合作者的意思（“阻止气候变化比这要困难得多”）。

全文见：http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731363,00.html

Americans don't like to lose wars—which makes sense, since we have so little practice with it. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars—the kind that test our mettle and our patriotism and our resourcefulness and our courage—and those are the kind at which we excel. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads or the eradication of polio but a massive, often frightening challenge that we decided as a culture we ought to rise up and face? If we indulge in a bit of chest-thumping and flag-waving when the job is done, well, we earned it.

We are now faced with a similarly momentous challenge: global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of our very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if we're fighting at all—and by most accounts, we're not—we're fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations ratified the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. While even developing China has boosted its mileage standards to 35 m.p.g., the U.S. remains the land of the Hummer. Oh, there are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from switchgrass or powering cars with hydrogen—someday. But for a country that rightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, we're taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of the country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and the stability of its economy—and for those of the world at large as well.

The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less consensus on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to naive wish lists that could cripple America's growth. But let's assume that those interested parties and others will always be at the table and will always—sensibly—demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like—one that would leave us both environmentally safe and economically sound?

Forget precedents like the Manhattan Project, which developed the atom bomb, or the Apollo program that put men on the moon—single-focus programs both, however hard they were to pull off. Think instead of the overnight conversion of the World War II–era industrial sector into a vast machine capable of churning out 60,000 tanks and 300,000 planes, an effort that not only didn't bankrupt the nation but instead made it rich and powerful beyond its imagining and—oh, yes—won the war in the process. （因省略造成理解困难的一段）

Halting climate change will be far harder than even that. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem, by Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala of Princeton University, calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 50 years—the equivalent of erasing nearly four years of global emissions at today's rates. And yet by devising a coherent strategy that mixes short-term solutions with farsighted goals, combines government activism with private-sector enterprise and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of our way of life for future generations. Money will get us part of the way there, but what's needed most is will. "I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelming," says Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of the new book Earth: The Sequel. "But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before."