【正确答案】
   机器人将代替人力，¹那我们现在应该做些什么呢?
   V1: What should we do right now to¹ cope with the idea that robots will take the place of human workers?
   V2: Robots are going to replace human labor.¹ What should we do about it now?
   如果以史为鉴，有些人可能会推动保护主义，使某些工作不被自动化取代²，以保持短期内的就业水平。
   V1: If we draw a lesson from history, we find that some people might advocate protectionism to prevent some jobs from being replaced by automation², thus maintaining employment levels for the moment.
   V2: If history is any indication, some will push for protectionism, shielding certain jobs² in order to preserve employment levels in the short-term.
   在下一个10年里，随着无人驾驶汽车的发展，美国有23.3万名出租车司机和170万名卡车司机都要面临失业的风险。
   V1: With the development of driverless vehicles in the next decade, about 233,000 taxi drivers and 1.7 million truck drivers in America will face the prospect of losing their jobs.
   V2: Over the next decade, 233,000 taxi drivers and 1.7 million truck drivers in the U.S. could be at risk of having their jobs automated away by driverless vehicles.
   现在美国的许多城市人们反对无人驾驶汽车。但在长期看，封锁创新是一种短视行为³，而且会使国家⁴失去竞争力，落后于那些乐于接受⁵更高效的新技术的国家⁴。
   V1: Though many people in American cities are opposed to driverless cars, it is a short-sighted reaction. In the long run³, this attitude will cost the country⁴ its competitive edge causing it to fall behind other countries that have embraced⁵ the more efficient new technologies.
   V2: Many cities have already attempted to block the expansion of driverless cars. However, in the long-term, attempting to block innovation is short-sighted³ and makes countries⁴ less competitive relative to others who are willing to accept⁵ new, more efficient technologies.
   在未来20年里，那些非熟练技术工更有可能感受到被机器人夺走工作的痛苦。
   V1: Therefore⁶, over the next 20 years unskilled workers will probably feel the pain of their jobs being taken over robots.
   V2: Over the next two decades, the most pain will be felt by lesser-skilled workers most likely to lose their jobs to automation.
   贫富差距⁷会进一步加大。这有可能进一步加剧紧张局面，刺激更多人游说提高最低工资。
   V1: Consequently, the gap between the rich and the poor⁷ will widen, causing greater tension (which, in turn, will aggravate/exacerbate the tension) and prompting some people to advocate raising the minimum wage.
   V2: As a result, the gap between the "haves and the have-nots"⁷ will widen. This could potentially create tension and fuel lobbying to increase the minimum wage.
   但是就像保护主义一样，提高最低工资最终也可能起到反效果。
   V1: However, increasing the minimum wage, like protectionism, could eventually lead to the opposite result.
   V2: But like protectionism, raising the minimum wage could ultimately be counter-productive.
   比如提高酒店业和快餐业员工⁸的最低工资，可能会进一步提高企业对自动化的兴趣，因为他们觉得这样做无疑会给公司省更多的钱⁹。
   V1: For instance, raising the minimum wages for employees of hotels and fast food restaurants⁸ may only encourage automation, which would save companies more money⁹.
   V2: Increasing minimum wage for hotel or fast-food employees⁸, for example, could actually make companies more interested in automating away those positions if it actually saves (them) money⁹.
   因此，与其推行就业保护主义、提升最低工资，我们还不如认真考虑应该如何改进我们过时的教育体系。
   V1: Thus, rather than resorting to protectionism and raising the minimum salary, we ought to carefully consider how to improve our outmoded education system.
   V2: Instead of protecting jobs or increasing the minimum wage, we should seriously consider improving our antiquated education system.

【答案解析】 1.原汉语的两句句子很短，译文1将其合并成一句是完全可行的。译文1还可简化为What should we do right now if/ since robots will take the place of human workers?
   2.译文2可直译成shielding certain jobs from robots/ automation，但原汉语中的“自动化”指代前文的“机器人”，所以译文2删除from robots/automation，读者也能推断出其义。
   3.译文1体现了句法翻译中的灵活性，在翻译“但在长期看，封锁创新是一种短视行为”时十分灵活，将short-sighted与In the long run分拆在两句之中。
   4.汉语往往没有清楚的单复数标记，原文中的“国家”可以是单数，也可以是复数。译文2使用了复数的countries是可以的。译文1改用单数的the country，回指前面的“美国”；由于使用了单数，所以很容易区别于后面的其他国家(others)。
   5.通常，“接受”可译成accept，但译文1选用embrace，使译文栩栩如生。
   6.在原汉语的句首没有连接词语，但读者可自行判断这句与前面一句之间的语义联系。译文1添加Therefore是可以的，译文2不添加连接词，留给读者自己去推理，也未尝不可。
   7.译文1、2分别添加了Consequently和As a result，都可接受。“贫富差距”通常译成the gap between the rich and the poor, the gap between rich and poor, the gap between the wealthy and the impoverished等。译文2的the gap between the "haves and the have-nots"虽然比较口语化，但显得很生动。
   8.译文1的employees of hotels and fast food restaurants是正常的译法，译文2的hotel or fast food employees更为灵活、简单。
   9.“省更多的钱”可直译成save companies more money，或save them more money，但如简化成save money，读者仍能正确理解其义。