"If the TPP were concluded on its present basis and include Japan, it would inevitably result in an increase in the U.S. trade deficit and a decline in the U.S. gross domestic product growth as well as in U.S. employment while failing to achive any increase in Japanese imports or anything like free trade, "the Economic Strategic Institute said.
和訳お願いします。
今まで苦情を受けた事はなかったが、降れば必ず土砂降りとはこの事だ。
Ｉ (ア)(イ)(ウ)(エ)(オ)．
(1)ten in a row
(2)never receive
(3)Ｉ have had
(4)but now
(5)complaints
です
(2)(5)(4)(3)(1)であってますか？
どなたか教えてください。宜しくお願いします。
Many people think that scientists make make great discoveries only while they are working hard in a laboratory. But sometimes scientists, mathematicians, and inventors find the answers to difficult problems while they are relaxing or even sleeping.
For example, the great physicist Isaac Newton had been trying for a long time to discover the laws of gravity. For a while his work went well, and he worked out two of the laws.But then he seemed to come to a dead end.Finally, one day , as he was relaxing under an apple tree, an apple landed on the ground in front of him. The falling apple apple gave him the clue he needed, and the last of the laws of the laws of gravity fell into place, too.
1worked out と同じ意味のもの
１looked for 2devised 3understood 4sought
2come to a dead end と同じ意味のもの
１come as far as the end 2be able to find the last one 3find to exit 4find no entrance
お願いします！
中間層についての記事ですが、上手く英訳することができず、困っています。
米国の子供の世代について述べられていますが、表現が難しく、苦戦しております。
長文ですが翻訳お願いします。
The American middle class is worried-and with reason. Middle-class workers have long been the foundation of American society. In recent decades, they have seemed more prosperously buoyant than ever, living in bigger houses with a panoply of utilities, gadgets, and entertainment systems. So why the angst?
The roots are primarily economic. Even in these boom times, anxiety levels rival those of the early Reagan recession years. In particular, people have great and growing fear about losing their jobs. And we are at one of the rare points in our history when Americans have stopped dreaming of a better life for their children. Now the hope is negative: that their children won't be forced into a lower standard of living. Americans used to feel sure each generation would do better than the last—but someone has run away with the ladder. Now the middle class lives with the same uncertainties that dog the poor. So close do many feel to the economic margin that they fear they're but one illness or one job loss away from catastrophe.
The paranoia is not idle. In the 1970s, a family had a roughly 7 percent chance of its income dropping by half or more. Today the odds are 17 percent. Almost two thirds of workers believe that it is harder to earn a decent living now than it was 20 or 30 years ago, according to the Pew Research Center. Workers with fewer years of formal education feel it most, as earnings of the college educated have about doubled compared with high school graduates. Yet the public education system, once the great equalizer, is perceived to be deteriorating, even as it has become dramatically harder to finance a college education.
The economy as a whole is performing well, but most people are not sharing in it. In 2005, the average income of those in the "bottom" 90 percent of the economy dipped from the year before. That's just one broad indicator of the problems confronting many of the groups within that 90 percent—no college education, single parent, minority. Meanwhile, at the top end of the economic spectrum, the gains have been spectacular. Just look at CEO pay, for example, which has risen in the past decade at triple the rate of the median worker's pay.
What is clear is that our richest 10 percent have gained the most. That top slice now receives 44 percent of pretax income, the highest since the 1920s and 1930s, and up from 32 percent between 1945 and 1980. The richest 1 percent has done even better, with pretax income growing from 8 percent of national income in 1980 to 17 percent in 2005. Another way to look at it is that the richest 1 percent of Americans took in 21.8 percent of all recorded income in 2005—double their share in 1980. This means that the 300,000 Americans at the top made almost as much money as the 150 million Americans at the bottom.
http://okwave.jp/qa/q8183123.htmlの続きの英文です。
福祉制度の改革の話だと思うのですが、上手く英訳することができず、困っています。
長文ですが翻訳お願いします。
The culture has also changed. Once, about 40 percent thought that a wife should help her husband's career rather than have one of her own. Now, 81 percent think she should have her own career, and 70 percent think that both husband and wife should earn money. Parental time with children has dropped from about 30 hours a week to around 17—yet 70 percent believe that children are not affected negatively by having a working mother unless they are under school age. Moreover, the vast majority of working mothers now say that even if the family did not need the income, they would continue working.
So a big question for everyone is how to reform Social Security and welfare so as to nourish marriage and raise the proportion of children who grow up in two-parent families. We should worry about a welfare system that pays unmarried mothers enough to have their own apartments and has led some to prefer babies to husbands. Research indicates that a 10 percent growth in welfare benefits increases by 12 percent the chances that a poor young woman will have a baby out of wedlock before the age of 22. This has been true for both whites and blacks.
This is one reason that, even after a significant reform of the welfare system, the single welfare mother has become the public symbol of much of what is wrong with America's social service programs. We must find ways to educate people to understand that it is a good idea to be married before having children. Federal aid should give incentives for couples to form and sustain healthy marriages, not encouragement for single parenthood and nonmarital birth. Social service benefits that phase out fairly quickly after marriage, for example, can actually create a marriage penalty. Nor should the tax code penalize couples who marry.
This dramatic shift from traditional to contemporary family structures and values is unlikely to change. But the bulk of the nation's most intractable social problems would benefit from tempering that trend by nurturing the American family. Public policy should not contribute to an a la carte menu of sex, love, and childbearing. It should emphasize the benefits for all from the package deal of marriage.
家族についての話だと思うのですが、上手く英訳することができず、困っています。
長文ですが翻訳お願いします。
You will hear a lot about the American family in the election campaign. For most of us, that calls up an image of a man and wife and two or three children. Forget it. Predominant as the social pattern for several hundred years, that American family has lost its place. Households of unmarried couples and households without children outnumber "American family" households. And only about 20 percent of families fit into the traditional structure with father as the only breadwinner.
Here is what has been happening: In the 1950s, 80 percent of adults were married; today, roughly 50 percent are. Why? Partly because people are delaying marriage, with the median age for a first marriage rising by four years for men and about five years for women. Second, divorce rates have more than doubled since the 1960s as marriage evolved from a sacrament to a contract. Third, millions more cohabit before marriage. Fourth, births to unmarried mothers, white and black, have risen from 5 percent in 1960 to about 35 percent today. So the new American family is a household with fewer children, with both parents working, and with mothers giving birth to their children at an ever older age, having fewer children, and spacing them further apart.
This is not good news. Twice as many married people indicate they are very happy as compared with those who aren't married. But it is the children who are most affected. The stable family of two biological parents—surprise, surprise!—turns out to be the ideal vessel for molding character, for nurturing, for inculcating values, and for planning for a child's future. By comparison, the children of single parents or broken families do worse at school and in their career. Marriage, or the lack of it, is the best single predictor of poverty, greater even than race or unemployment.
The result is a serious new divide in our society between the children of poorer, less educated, single parents and those of richer, better educated, and married parents. The married parents typically earn more than $75,000; in only 20 percent of cases do married parents with children earn less than $15,000.
The startling increase of those who grow up with only one parent has markedly added to poverty among children, shifting poverty from the old to the young. Children in mother-only families are more likely than those with two parents to be suspended from school, to have emotional problems, to become delinquent, to suffer from abuse, to take drugs, and to perform poorly on virtually every measure.
All cultures have set phrases for greeting. No doubt, you have been taught to say, `How are you?` when you greet an English speaker, and to reply with,`Fine, thanks` when someone greets you, but the set phrases differ across cultuers. Although it is common in Chinese to greets people with,`How are you?` it is more common to say, `Have you eaten?` or `Where are you going?` The `Where are you going?` greeting can irritate some people, even though the greeter is just being polite in recognizing your presence by offering a greeting. For example, when I was a student at a university in Shanghai, I had to go to the shower block in order to take a shower. This was a special building, a bath house, where all the showers were. It was pretty easy to tell if someone was going to the shower block. They would be wearing special shower slippers, carrying a large plastic bowl with a bar of soap in it, and have a towel draped around their necks. So when I walked to the shower block and people used to greet me with, `Where are you going?` I often felt like (reply) `Where do you think Iam going to with my slippers, bowl, soap and towel? Make a guess.`
以下の文のsubject of ....の部分がいまいちピンときません。解説をお願いします。
The new park, located in the city of Suwon, was the subject of much pre-debut speculation, with local media reporting that it would boast not only "sculptures", but also, intriguingly,"hands-on sites."
よろしくお願いいたします。
