ＯＧ１０　第七篇－看ＧＭＡＴ阅读文章是如何改出来的！

ＯＧ１０　第七篇－看ＧＭＡＴ阅读文章是如何改写出来的！

原文要简单些吧？

FROM USEFUL TO USELESS:

THE CHANGING SOCIAL VALUE OF CHILDREN

Nancy Tomes

Viviana A.Zelizer,Pricing:the Priceless Child:The changing Social Value of Children.New York:Basic Books,1985.X+277 PP.Notes and index.$18.95

 原文

In 1896,a Georgia couple sued a railroad company for the accidental death of their two-year-old son.Despite testimony that the child did useful errands for his family,the court concluded that since he he had no real “earning capacity”,the railroad was not liable for damages,and the family was awarded only enough money to cover his burial expenses.Less than a century later,in 1979,the parents of a three year-old-boy who received a lethal dose of flouride at a city dental clinic sued for damages:in contrast to their late nineteenth-century counterparts,they got an award of $750,000 from a New York jury.

The transformation in social values implicit in these two incidents is the subject of  Viviana Zelizer’s excellent book, Pricing:the Priceless Child.Over the course of the nineteenth century,she argues,the concept of the “usefull” child who was expected to make a valuable contribution to the family economy gradually gave way to the “useless” child today who is economically worthless,indeed extremely costly,to its parents,yet considered emotionally  “priceless”.Well established among the middle and upper classes by the mid-1800s,this new sentimental view of childhood spread across classes in the Progressive period,as reformers introduced a variety of  measures to “protect” working-class children.As the result of child labour and compulsory education laws,by the 1930s, “lower-class children (had )joined their middle-class counterparts in a new nonproductive world of childhood, a world in which the sanctity and emotional value of a child made child labor taboo,”Zelizer writes(p.6).

The origins of this transformation of childhood were many and complex.The gradual erosion of children’s productive value in a maturing industrial economy,the decline in birth and death rates,especially child mortality,and the rise of the companionate family were all critical factors affecting the changing assement of children’s worth.Yet “expulsion of children from the ‘cash nexus’ at the turn of the past century,although clearly shaped by pro

GMAT文章 OG10　第七篇

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 juxta-

posing 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 iate-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 sacral-

ization’ of children’s lives. ” Protecting 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 “ sur-

(55) render” value on the market, that is, the conversion of

their intangible worth into cash terms, became much

greater.

上面就是原文啊，你看跟改完的一样吗？

原文
   

In 1896,a Georgia couple sued a railroad company for the accidental death of their two-year-old son.Despite testimony that the child did useful errands for his family,the court concluded that since he he had no real “earning capacity”,the railroad was not liable for damages,and the family was awarded only enough money to cover his burial expenses.

再看修改后成为ＧＭＡＴ阅读的文章：

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.

.....sorry~~偶看的时候LZ还没编辑完哈.....

偶觉得GMAT的更简洁.....