ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 4510|回复: 5
打印 上一主题 下一主题

请教OG-7-42题

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2005-4-11 05:58:00 | 只看该作者

请教OG-7-42题



Passage 7


In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the




accidental death of their two year old was told that since




the child had made no real economic contribution to the




family, there was no liability for damages.  In contrast,




(5) less than a century later, in 1979, the parents of a three




year old sued in New York for accidental-death damages




and won an award of $750,000.





The transformation in social values implicit in juxtaposing




these two incidents is the subject of Viviana




(10) Zelizer’s excellent book, Pricing the Priceless Child.




During the nineteenth century, she argues, the concept




of the “useful” child who contributed to the family




economy gave way gradually to the present-day notion




of the “useless” child who, though producing no income




(15) for, and indeed extremely costly to, its parents, is yet




considered emotionally “priceless.”            Well established




among segments of the middle and upper classes by the




mid-1800’s, this new view of childhood spread through-




out society in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth




(20) centuries as reformers introduced child-labor regulations




and compulsory education laws predicated in part on the




assumption that a child’s emotional value made child




labor taboo.







For Zelizer the origins of this transformation were




(25) many and complex.        The gradual erosion of children’s




productive value in a maturing industrial economy,




the decline in birth and death rates, especially in child




mortality, and the development of the companionate




family (a family in which members were united by




(30) explicit bonds of love rather than duty) were all factors




critical in changing the assessment of children’s worth. Yet “expulsion of children from the ‘cash nexus,’...




although clearly shaped by profound changes in the




economic, occupational, and family structures,” Zelizer




(35) maintains. “was also part of a cultural process ‘of sacralization’ of children’s lives. ”        rotecting children from the




crass business world became enormously important for




late-nineteenth-century middle-class Americans, she




suggests; this sacralization was a way of resisting what




(40) they perceived as the relentless corruption of human




values by the marketplace.







In stressing the cultural determinants of a child’s




worth. Zelizer takes issue with practitioners of the new




“sociological economics,” who have analyzed such tradi-




(45) tionally sociological topics as crime, marriage, educa-




tion, and health solely in terms of their economic deter-




minants.               Allowing only a small role for cultural forces




in the form of individual “preferences,” these sociologists




tend to view all human behavior as directed primarily by




(50) 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.



42. Zerlizer refers to all of the following as important influences in changing the assessment of children's worth EXCEPT changes in


(A) the mortality rate


(B) the nature of industry


(C) the nature of the family


(D) attitudes toward reform movements


(E)attitudes toward the marketplace


请教~,找不到这道题在文中怎么表现的?



沙发
发表于 2005-4-11 07:21:00 | 只看该作者

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.
“改革运动”和“对改革运动的态度”差异很大。


A, B and C are mentioned in lines 48-58(有误) as factors Zelizer regards as “critical in changing the assessment of children’s worth”.
这里是在第三段开始部分列举的3点。


E is mentioned in lines 70-80(有误) , 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.”


E则是自第31-32行的Yet之后所陈述的第4方面因素。


[此贴子已经被作者于2005-4-11 7:21:03编辑过]
板凳
发表于 2005-7-13 09:08:00 | 只看该作者
谢谢斑竹。
地板
发表于 2008-6-30 21:49:00 | 只看该作者
可是怎么想也想不到三点说完了之后,作者都说了were all factors.然后后面的竟然还是另一个factor.而且说实话,后面这段没怎么看懂。
5#
发表于 2009-8-6 16:59:00 | 只看该作者

这主要是一种语言现象,一串列举过后出现yet,but这种词,不表转折,而表示一种递进关系

6#
发表于 2013-6-12 09:57:02 | 只看该作者
adv.但是; 还; 已经; 又,再
conj.然而,但是
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-11-5 15:25
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部