大全－16 最后一段不理解

In stressing the cultural determinants of a child’s worth, Zelizer takes issue with practitioners of the new “sociological economics,” who have analyzed such traditionally sociological topics as crime, marriage, education, and health solely in terms of their economic determinants. Allowing only a small role for cultural forces in the form of individual “preferences,” these sociologists tend to view all human behaviors as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain. Zelizer is highly critical of this approach, and emphasizes instead the opposite phenomenon: the power of social values to transform price. As children became more valuable in emotional terms, she argues, their “exchange” or “surrender” value on the market, that is, the conversion of their intangible worth into cash terms, became much greater.

看来半天还是没有完全领悟说了些什么，请那位nn帮忙翻译一下。

In stressing the cultural determinants of a child’s worth, Zelizer takes issue with practitioners of the new “sociological economics,” who have analyzed such traditionally sociological topics as crime, marriage, education, and health solely in terms of their economic determinants. Z强调儿童价值的文化决定因素，而新社会经济学者强调经济决定因素。

Allowing only a small role for cultural forces in the form of individual “preferences,” these sociologists tend to view all human behaviors as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain. 这些社会学者仅仅把文化影响看作是一种微弱的作用，他们倾向于把人类行为视作经济利益驱动。

Zelizer is highly critical of this approach, and emphasizes instead the opposite phenomenon: the power of social values to transform price. Z持反对态度，强调社会价值观会改变经济价格因素。

As children became more valuable in emotional terms, she argues, their “exchange” or “surrender” value on the market, that is, the conversion of their intangible worth into cash terms, became much greater. Z认为，随着儿童在情感标准下日益变得无价，所以，他们在市场中的’交换’价值，即从无形价值到金钱等价物的转换，则变得日渐高昂了。

这是OG的第七篇，看看OG的解释，其中第39题和40题对上述段落进行了说明，我们可以参照的。其实，我把所有的解释都列出来，是想反映一下：这些题目和解释是构成一体，它们对文章进行解释，进而揭示了阅读的方法：

37.

A is the best answer. In the first paragraph, the author cites an accidental-death case from nineteenth-century America in which the absence of economic contribution on the part of a deceased child was ruled sufficient grounds to deny the awarding of damages to the child’s parents. The author goes on to discuss how this case typified attitudes that persisted even into the twentieth century. It can be inferred from this that in nineteenth-century America the chief consideration in determining damages in an accidental-death case was the deceased person’s earnings. There is no evidence in the passage to suggest that the factors in B, C, D and E were of primary concern in determining accidental-death damages in nineteenth-century America.

38.

C is the best answer. In the second paragraph, the author describes how during the nineteenth century the concept of the “ ‘useful’ child who contributed to the family economy” (lines 23-24) gradually gave way to the present-day notion of the economically “useless” but emotionally “priceless” child. This new view of childhood was “well established among segments of the middle and upper classes by the mid-1800’s” and “spread throughout society in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries” (lines 31-38). Thus in the early 1800’s, prior to the shift in the valuation of children, families valued the role children had to play in the family’s economic well-being. A and E describe attitude more in accord with the present-day view of childhood. B and D address issues that are not raised in the passage.

39.

B is the best answer. According to the author, practitioners of the new “sociological economics” explain sociological phenomena “solely in terms of their economic determinants” and “tend to view all human behavior as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain’ (lines 85-98). This choice provides just such an economic explanation for the nineteenth-century rise in the cash value of children. A paraphrases Zelizer’s own explanation, which is at odds with that of the sociological economists. C uses social values and emotional factors to explain an even broader revaluation of individual worth. D uses an economic argument to explain the change, but here the economic factors at work are the result of a change. E provides a legal explanation for the change.

40.

B is the best answer. In the first paragraph, the author contrasts two incidents that are said to exemplify the transformation in social values that forms the subject of Zelizer’s book. The second and third paragraphs consist of a brief history of that transformation, as Zelizer presents it, and an account of the factors she considers important in bringing it about. In the last paragraph, the author explains how Zelizer’s thesis differs from that of sociological economists.

Thus, the passage serves primarily to present the central thesis of Zelizer’s book. A and E misrepresent the subject matter of the passage. D mispresents the author’s approach. C is incorrect because although the passage does contrast two approaches, this contrast takes place only in the final paragraph.

41.

C is the best answer. In the third paragraph, the author cites Zelizer’s contention that the new view of childhood that developed in nineteenth-century America was due in part to “the development of the companionate family (a family in which members were united by explicit bonds of love rather

than duty)”(lines 54-58). From this it can be inferred that the emotional bonds between family

members became increasingly important during this period. There are no information in the passage to support the other answer choices.

42.

D is the best answer. Although reform movements are mentioned in lines 39-45, the passage does not discuss attitudes or changes in attitudes toward those movements. This choice is therefore NOT among the influences Zelizer is said to regard as important in changing the assessment of children’s worth. A, B and C are mentioned in lines 48-58 as factors Zelizer regards as “critical in changing the assessment of children’s worth”. E is mentioned in lines 70-80, which describe how the “sacralization” of children’s lives represented “a way of resisting what they <middle-class

Americans> perceived as the relentless corruption of human values by the marketplace.”

恩， 看来og很有用……我还是趁早看吧……