If forecasting the end of urbanisation is a distraction, then the opposite argument – that cities can carry on as before, just with more open-air dining options – is equally misjudged. Both the pandemic and the battles being waged within US cities have exposed an inescapable fact about urban life: privatised, financialised, highly unequal cities do not work for most of their inhabitants. Cities still have a future, but the specific kind of city that has become globally dominant today shouldn’t have a place in it.

思考题：

What is the author’s attitude towards cities?

(A) detached    (B)objective    (C) specific    (D) supportive

词汇突破：

forecaste: 预测

urbanisation：都市化

distraction 干扰

the opposite argument 相反的观点

carry on 继续

open-air dining options 露天就餐的选择

pandemic 疫情

wage (动词) 开始

inescapable 不可逃避的

privatised 私有化

financialised 金融化

highly unequal 高度不平等

inhabitant 居民

the specific kind 特定类型的

globally dominant 全球主导地位

句子解析：

句：

If forecasting the end of urbanisation is a distraction,(状语) then the opposite argument – that cities can carry on as before, just with more open-air dining options(同位语) – is equally misjudged.(主干)

参考译文：如果说对城市化终结的预测是一种干扰，那么相反的观点——城市能一如既往地继续，只是有更多露天就餐的选择——同样是误判。

第二句：

Both the pandemic and the battles being waged within US cities(定语) have exposed an inescapable fact about urban life:/ (起解释作用的句子)privatised, financialised, highly unequal cities do not work for most of their inhabitants.(同位语解释fact)

参考译文：新冠肺炎疫情和美国城市内展开的冲突都暴露了无法回避的城市生活现实：私有化、金融化、高度不平等的城市并不适合大多数居民。

第三句：

Cities still have a future, (并列主干1)but the specific kind of city that has become globally dominant today (定语)shouldn’t have a place in it.(并列主干2)

参考译文：城市仍有明天，但这种如今占全球主导地位的特定城市不应在未来有一席之地。

思考题解析：

What is the author’s attitude towards cities?

作者对城市的态度是什么?

(A) detached 漠不关心

(怎么可能不关心，写了这么多!)

(B) objective客观 (对!好的坏的都说了!)

(C) specific特定的

(这就是来打酱油的，找了个文章中的词，其实啥也不是!)

(D) supportive 支持 (不能说是一味地支持!)

文章来源背景和来源：

Our cities only serve the wealthy. Coronavirus could change that

我们的城市只服务富人。冠状病毒能改变这一点

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/02/coronavirus-cities-elite-community

背景：城市例来迎合精英的需求，但新冠肺炎在低收入人群中不成比例的患病率和死亡率为我们敲响了警钟：中产阶级化的城市规划并不会带来期望的“光鲜亮丽”和“时光静好”，城市若不能让各阶层都生活得更美好，将迎来真实的灾难。最近，美国城市又被卷入这代人见过的声势最浩大的反种族主义冲突。两次突发事件都凸现了同一个问题：当代都市的残酷和不平等已经无以为继。有人说，城市的人口高密度是疫病的天然温床，只有回归田园才能真正解决问题。这个说法简单混淆了“高密度”和“过度拥挤”是两个相关却不同的概念，过度拥护是不平等和住房危机的后果，而非城市生活的标配。在伦敦和纽约这样的大城市，地产开发总是以精英、大企业和投资者的需求为设计核心，导致城市充满了住宅区、甲级写字楼、新商业区和高冷风的公园区。这种高大上的精英开发，伴随着社会服务及公共机构的持续弱化，迅速加剧了不平等，令底层民众面临疫情完全失去招架能力，也让怒火在人群中不断积聚和升级。