從文意來看，二人的婚姻關係出現問題應該已經有很長時間了，他們為了維繫或修復這段關係，也做出了大量的思考和努力。在表達時，為了不重複兩個大量分別用了a great deal of和 a lot of。這是大家能輕鬆看出來的，大家不太容易看到的，是介系詞on的使用。介系詞的準確使用，是兩個英文單字量相近的人，運用水準高下立判的關鍵之一。
thought和work在做名詞時，都可以接on再接另外一個名詞，來表示“在某事上做過思考或努力”的意思，大部分憑感覺的人，可能會用 in 吧！in 不是不對，但 in 後面如果跟名詞習慣上更多是接動名詞。至於 we have made the decision to，就比we have decided to要更加鄭重，放在divorce這樣的大事上更加合適。
而表示二人離開，也沒有直接用divorce，而是用了end the marriage（結束婚姻關係），能看出來二人對於即將結束的這段關係是抱有尊重的。
over the last/past xyears這個表達方式，重點還是在介系詞。over表示橫跨，通常我們回顧某段時間，就會用到這個介系詞；而另一個用法in the last/past x years中的in，over更能表達某段時間內一直在做某事，有持續的意思；另外over也比較適合說明比較長的時間，所以我們會看到over後面跟years, centuries，但是很少用來說seconds.
至於lead healthy and productive lives則是片語lead a x life的運用，而productive可以用來形容life，就不是所有人都知道了。productive字面意思是“多產的、富有成效的”，在翻譯時當然不能直翻，所以可用中文裡比較接近的說法來表達「積極的人生」。不要小看這個翻譯的過程，之後想到「積極的人生」 ，才能直接對應到英文的productive life，這才是高準度英翻中的精髓。
各位夥伴會注意到「對某事有共同追求」可以說share a belief in something。而phase不僅可以用來表示實驗中的階段，還可以用在生活中「the next phase of life」。
Ask for space and privacy 告訴我們在需要空間和隱私的時候可以說I need some space/privacy，這會比leave me alone要禮貌得多。至於最後一個片語，也是很棒的表達方式，相對於lead a xx life的定義感，navigate our new life更能傳遞一種在未來的人生旅程中盡量不迷失（do not get lost）的意涵，更適合拿來講未知、未來的事物，翻譯成白話就是“我們都會好好地生活”。
現在看完了這篇推文的解析，是不是有重新刷新了你對英文寫作的認知呢？比爾蓋茲用非常淺顯易懂的表述，完美詮釋了他的立場與想法。這才是英文寫作的原則：simple, clear, and effective
When I think about dreams, like many of you, I think about this picture. I was eight when I watched Neil Armstrong step off the Lunar Module onto the surface of the Moon. I had never seen anything like it before, and I’ve never seen anything like it since. 當我想到夢想，與很多人一樣我會想到這張圖片。八歲時我看見尼爾·阿姆斯壯從登月艙中走出踏上月球表面。前無古人、後無來者。
We got to the Moon for one simple reason: John Kennedy committed us to a deadline. And in the absence of that deadline, we would still be dreaming about it. Leonard Bernstein said two things are necessary for great achievement: a plan and not quite enough time.
Deadlines and commitments are the great and fading lessons of Apollo. And they are what give the word “moonshot” its meaning. And our world is in desperate need of political leaders willing to set bold deadlines for the achievement of daring dreams on the scale of Apollo again.
When I think about dreams, I think about the drag queens of LA and Stonewall and millions of other people risking everything to come out when that was really dangerous, and of this picture of the White House lit up in rainbow colors, yes.
Celebrating America’s gay and lesbian citizens’ right to marry, it is a picture that in my wildest dreams I could never have imagined when I was 18 and figuring out that I was gay and feeling estranged from my country and my dreams because of it.
I think about this picture of my family that I never dreamed I could ever have — and of our children holding this headline I never dreamed could ever be printed about the Supreme Court ruling. We need more of the courage of drag queens and astronauts.
But I want to talk about the need for us to dream in more than one dimension, because there was something about Apollo that I didn’t know when I was 8, and something about organizing that the rainbow colors over. Of the 30 astronauts in the original Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, only seven marriages survived. Those iconic images of the astronauts bouncing on the Moon obscure the alcoholism and depression on Earth.
Thomas Merton, the Trappist monk, asked during the time of Apollo, “What can we gain by sailing to the moon if we are not able to cross the abyss that separates us from ourselves?” And what can we gain by the right to marry if we are not able to cross the acrimony and emotional distance that so often separates us from our love? And not just in marriage.
I have seen the most hurtful, destructive, tragic infighting in LGBT and AIDS and breast cancer and non-profit activism, all in the name of love. Thomas Merton also wrote about wars among saints and that “there is a pervasive form of contemporary violence to which the idealist most easily succumbs: activism and overwork.
The frenzy of our activism neutralizes our work for peace. It destroys our own inner capacity for peace.” Too often our dreams become these compartmentalized fixations on some future that destroy our ability to be present for our lives right now. Our dreams of a better life for some future humanity or some other humanity in another country alienate us from the beautiful human beings sitting next to us at this very moment.
Well, that’s just the price of progress, we say. You can go to the Moon or you can have stability in your family life. And we can’t conceive of dreaming in both dimensions at the same time. And we don’t set the bar much higher than stability when it comes to our emotional life. Which is why our technology for talking to one another has gone vertical, our ability to listen and understand one another has gone nowhere.
Our access to information is through the roof, our access to joy, grounded. But this idea, that our present and our future are mutually exclusive, that to fulfill our potential for doing we have to surrender our profound potential for being, that the number of transistors on a circuit can be doubled and doubled, but our capacity for compassion and humanity and serenity and love is somehow limited is a false and suffocating choice.
Now, I’m not suggesting simply the uninspiring idea of more work-life balance. What good is it for me to spend more time with my kids at home if my mind is always somewhere else while I’m doing it? I’m not even talking about mindfulness. Mindfulness is all of a sudden becoming a tool for improving productivity. Right?
I’m talking about dreaming as boldly in the dimension of our being as we do about industry and technology. I’m talking about an audacious authenticity that allows us to cry with one another, a heroic humility that allows us to remove our masks and be real.
It is our inability to be with one another, our fear of crying with one another, that gives rise to so many of the problems we are frantically trying to solve in the first place, from Congressional gridlock to economic inhumanity.
I’m talking about what Jonas Salk called an Epoch B, a new epoch in which we become as excited about and curious about and scientific about the development of our humanity as we are about the development of our technology.
We should not shrink from this opportunity simply because we don’t really understand it. There was a time when we didn’t understand space. Or because we’re more used to technology and activism. That is the very definition of being stuck in a comfort zone. We are now very comfortable imagining unimaginable technological achievement. In 2016, it is the dimension of our being itself that cries out for its fair share of our imagination.
Now, we’re all here to dream, but maybe if we’re honest about it, each of us chasing our own dream. You know, looking at the name tags to see who can help me with my dream, sometimes looking right through one another’s humanity. I can’t be bothered with you right now. I have an idea for saving the world. Right?
Years ago, once upon a time, I had this beautiful company that created these long journeys for heroic civic engagement. And we had this mantra: “Human. Kind. Be Both.” And we encouraged people to experiment outrageously with kindness. Like, “Go help everybody set up their tents.” And there were a lot of tents.
“Go buy everybody Popsicles.” “Go help people fix their flat tires even though you know the dinner line is going to get longer.”
“給大家買冰棒。”“説明需要的人補胎，哪怕要花更多時間排隊等晚飯。“
And people really took us up on this, so much so that if you got a flat tire on the AIDS ride, you had trouble fixing it, because there were so many people there asking you if you needed help.
For a few days, for tens of thousands of people, we created these worlds that everybody said were the way they wish the world could always be. What if we experimented with creating that kind of world these next few days?
And instead of going up to someone and asking them, “What do you do?” ask them, “So what are your dreams?” or “What are your broken dreams?” You know, “TED.” Tend to Each other’s Dreams.
Maybe it’s “I want to stay sober” or “I want to build a tree house with my kid.” You know, instead of going up to the person everybody wants to meet, go up to the person who is all alone and ask them if they want to grab a cup of coffee.
I think what we fear most is that we will be denied the opportunity to fulfill our true potential, that we are born to dream and we might die without ever having the chance.
我想我們最害怕的是，我們自己放棄了我們與生俱來可以真正實現我們潛力的夢想，害怕我們至死都不曾一試。
Imagine living in a world where we simply recognize that deep, existential fear in one another and love one another boldly because we know that to be human is to live with that fear. It’s time for us to dream in multiple dimensions simultaneously, and somewhere that transcends all of the wondrous things we can and will and must do lies the domain of all the unbelievable things we could be.
It’s time we set foot into that dimension and came out about the fact that we have dreams there, too. If the Moon could dream, I think that would be its dream for us. It’s an honor to be with you. Thank you very much.
如果題目是具體人名（通常出現first name + last name）理論型搭配題，那麼人物在第一次出現的時候一定會是完整的first name + last name的形式，但是從人物第二次出現開始，一般都只出現該人物的last name，所以考生在定位的時候需要極其注意不要漏掉任何一個人物出現的句子。比如說：Michael Jackson如果第一次在文章中出現，那麼一定是完整的first name + last name的形式，但是當他第二次或者第三次出現的時候，一般就只會出現Jackson了，也就是他的last name。
如同「事物+特徵類」搭配題一樣，「人物+理論型」題目也要在解題之前注意題目和選項數量的配比。有時候在題目的要求當中會出現NB的要求，也就是小提示：You may use any letter more than once. 在這個時候如果選項是人物的話，NB的要求就意味著有一個人物會被選到兩次，而根據經驗，這個重複選擇的人物通常都是原文當中出現最多的人物。
例如劍橋4教材Test 2的 Reading Passage 1 Lost for words後面的Question 5-8中，因為題目有NB的要求，所以這題的五道小題中就會有兩題選擇同一個人物，而這個人物就有可能是在原文當中出現最多的那一位。
舉個例子，寫 What are the influences if the gap between the poor and the rich is widening.
貧富懸殊擴大
The widening disparity between the rich and the poor
—影響influence —兩極化 polarize community —激化社會矛盾intensify the social conflict —社會對立social incompatibility —心理問題 induce psychological problem —仇富心理 result in hatred for the wealthy —自卑心理suffer from inferior mentality
—行為過激aggressive behaviour — 遊行protest — 罷工strike —強烈抗議 outcry —暴亂riot —反政府反社會 anti-government/anti-society —發洩情緒及不滿 give vent to their anger and dissatisfaction
—增加犯罪 drive up the crime rate —社會不公平social inequality —更可能獲得公共資源have more access to public resources
—比其他人更容易獲得社會特權 acquire special privilege over the poor — 進一步分化社會，加劇社會仇恨 Further polarize the society and fuel social hatred — 產生惡性循環thereby creating a vicious circle
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)