og-7-37,问一道偶想了粉久都搞不出来的

omeimei

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.

37. It can be inferred from the passage that accidental-death damage awards in America during the nineteenth century tended to be based principally on the

(A) earnings of the person at time of death

(B) wealth of the party causing the death

(C) degree of culpability of the party causing the death

(D) amount of money that had been spent on the person killed

(E) amount of suffering endured by the family of the person killed

37.og解释：

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.

E were of primary concern in determining accidental-death damages in nineteenth-century America.

我不明白的是，为什么不选E？明明把时间限定在19th，可是的一个例子和第二段都说的是19th呀？

wangyu73cn

最后一句的解释引用有误，应为：There is no evidence in the passage to suggest that the  factors cited in B, C, D, and E were of primary concern in determining accidental-death damages in nineteenth-century America.

第一段第一个例子是说19th 世纪，即在1801－1900年之间。而A中提及的因素，正如解释中所说，在19世纪末期的1896年的事故赔偿方面仍在发挥主要作用。

第二段提及过渡的过程。E中提及的因素在19世纪中期才开始在中上层社会确立，而直至19世纪末期和20世纪初期，才得以在全社会普及。注意，文章中用spread through，这是一个过程性的动词，并不是说完全确立，和第一段中第一个例子不矛盾，也就是即便在19世纪末期，在事故赔偿方面仍由老因素在发挥作用的倾向非常大(tended to be)。

omeimei

谢谢哦，我再仔细体会体会，一下子就被这些时间状语搞晕了：（

swlfx

以下是引用wangyu73cn在2005-4-10 21:53:00的发言：

最后一句的解释引用有误，应为：There is no evidence in the passage to suggest that the  factors cited in B, C, D, and E were of primary concern in determining accidental-death damages in nineteenth-century America.

第一段第一个例子是说19th 世纪，即在1801－1900年之间。而A中提及的因素，正如解释中所说，在19世纪末期的1896年的事故赔偿方面仍在发挥主要作用。

第二段提及过渡的过程。E中提及的因素在19世纪中期才开始在中上层社会确立，而直至19世纪末期和20世纪初期，才得以在全社会普及。注意，文章中用spread through，这是一个过程性的动词，并不是说完全确立，和第一段中第一个例子不矛盾，也就是即便在19世纪末期，在事故赔偿方面仍由老因素在发挥作用的倾向非常大(tended to be)。

分析的真棒。多谢

BeHappy

以下是引用wangyu73cn在2005-4-10 21:53:00的发言：

最后一句的解释引用有误，应为：There is no evidence in the passage to suggest that the  factors cited in B, C, D, and E were of primary concern in determining accidental-death damages in nineteenth-century America.

第一段第一个例子是说19th 世纪，即在1801－1900年之间。而A中提及的因素，正如解释中所说，在19世纪末期的1896年的事故赔偿方面仍在发挥主要作用。

第二段提及过渡的过程。E中提及的因素在19世纪中期才开始在中上层社会确立，而直至19世纪末期和20世纪初期，才得以在全社会普及。注意，文章中用spread through，这是一个过程性的动词，并不是说完全确立，和第一段中第一个例子不矛盾，也就是即便在19世纪末期，在事故赔偿方面仍由老因素在发挥作用的倾向非常大(tended to be)。

Great explanation!

More modern systems of dating, (such as the astronomical calendar, see proleptic Gregorian calendar) begin with a year zero. In these cardinal dating systems, it is perfectly logical to use 0 to 99 as the first century, and to regard 2000 as the first year of the twenty-first century. ------Wikipedia

because 0 to 99 is consider the 1st century, 1801-1900 is considered 19th century. In this question, 1896 is considered 19th century.

sammaijgd

题目的时间状语定位19世纪,指的是第一个例子,与第二个无关