GWD29-Q21 的原文在GWD-12-Q8 to Q10处, 现将文章和题补充如下: Acting on the recommendation of a British government committee investigating the high incidence in white lead factories of illness among employees, most of whom were women, the Home Secretary proposed in 1895 that Parliament enact legislation that would prohibit women from holding most jobs in white lead factories. Although the Women’s Industrial Defence Committee (WIDC), formed in 1892 in response to earlier legislative attempts to restrict women’s labor, did not discount the white lead trade’s potential health dangers, it opposed the proposal, viewing it as yet another instance of limiting women’s work opportunities. Also opposing the proposal was the Society for Promoting the Employment of Women (SPEW), which attempted to challenge it by investigating the causes of illness in white lead factories. SPEW contended, and WIDC concurred, that controllable conditions in such factories were responsible for the development of lead poisoning. SPEW provided convincing evidence that lead poisoning could be avoided if workers were careful and clean and if already extant workplace safety regulations were stringently enforced. However, the Women’s Trade Union League (WTUL), which had ceased in the late 1880’s to oppose restrictions on women’s labor, supported the eventually enacted proposal, in part because safety regulations were generally not being enforced in white lead factories, where there were no unions (and little prospect of any) to pressure employers to comply with safety regulations.
GWD29-Q21
The passage suggests that WIDC differed from WTUL in which of the following ways?A. WIDC believed that the existing safety regulations were adequate to protect women’s health, whereas WTUL believed that such regulations needed to be strengthened.
B. WIDC believed that unions could not succeed in pressuring employers to comply with such regulations, whereas WTUL believed that unions could succeed in doing so.
C. WIDC believed that lead poisoning in white lead factories could be avoided by controlling conditions there, whereas WTUL believed that lead poisoning in such factories could not be avoided no matter how stringently safety regulations were enforced.
D. At the time that the legislation concerning white lead factories was proposed, WIDC was primarily concerned with addressing health conditions in white lead factories, whereas WTUL was concerned with improving working conditions in all types of factories
E. At the time that WIDC was opposing legislative attempts to restrict women’s labor, WTUL had already ceased to do so.
我选E, 但没有正确答案, 请教各位是否对.[此贴子已经被作者于2009-4-26 14:52:43编辑过] -- by 会员 lyen_wang (2009/4/26 14:49:00)
这道题我一开始选A~~~
蓝色是那个at issue 的legislation。 红色字是两个协会的观点
思路是：
第一个协会是，虽然没完全否认妇女在那个工作环境下的潜在危险，但是还是反对这个政策，觉得它是对妇女工作权利的损害。
第二个协会是，停止抗议这个提议，转而支持，是他们觉得工作安全条例实际上并没被执行，且也没啥希望能够敦促employer执行相关安全法令（于是乎，他们退而求其次，与其抗争使得更多的女人可以在那个环境下工作，还不如就支持“别让女人在那样的环境下工作”）
这个都是suggest了第一个协会觉得保护法规还是够的，而第二个已经完全认为实际上没有什么保护（即保护条例需要加强）
后来觉得，是不是这里我对 safty regulation的理解有点偏差。就是说本身safty regulation是足够的，只是没被充分执行，而“没被执行”不能被纳入“regulation不足够”的范畴里.....
是这样么？有NN来帮忙不？ | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2010-11-14 15:53:04
