[求助]一篇阅读里的两道题，怎么都转不过来，求解啊……

morgan007

    

文章中最后一段已经提到了“zelizer is highly critical of this approach”了，为什么在37（A）和39（B）里面还是在强调children 的economic value呢？ 答案的推理让我觉得很没有信服力，有没有哪位能给我指点迷津下啊？谢谢了

    

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.

    

 

    

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（A）

    

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

    

 

    

38. It can be inferred from the passage that in the early
1800’s children were generally regarded by their families as individuals who

    

(A)  
needed enormous amounts of security and affection

    

(B)  
required constant supervision while working

    

(C)  
were important to the economic well-being of a family

    

(D)  
were unsuited to spending long hours in school（C）

    

(E)  
were financial burdens assumed for the good of society

    

 

    

39. Which of the following alternative explanations of the
change in the cash value of children would be most likely to be put forward by
sociological economists as they are described in the passage?

    

(A)  
The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth
century because parents began to increase their emotional investment in the
upbringing of their children.

    

(B)  
The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth
century because their expected earnings over the course of a lifetime increased
greatly.

    

(C)  
The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth
century because the spread of humanitarian ideals resulted in a wholesale
reappraisal of the worth of an individual

    

(D)  
The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth
century because compulsory education laws reduced the supply, and thus raised
the costs, of available child labor.
        （B）

    

(E)  
The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth
century because of changes in the way negligence law assessed damages in
accidental-death cases.

    

 

    

40. The primary purpose of the passage is to

    

(A)  
review the literature in a new academic subfield

    

(B)  
present the central thesis of a recent book

    

(C)  
contrast two approaches to analyzing historical change

    

(D)  
refute a traditional explanation of a social phenomenon（B）

    

(E)  
encourage further work on a neglected historical topic

    

 

    

41. It can be inferred from the passage that which of the
following statements was true of American families over the course of the
nineteenth century?

    

(A)  
The average size of families grew considerably

    

(B)  
The percentage of families involved in industrial work
declined dramatically.

    

(C)  
Family members became more emotionally bonded to one
another.

    

(D)  
Family members spent an increasing amount of time working
with each other.
        （C）

    

(E)  
Family members became more economically dependent on each
other.

    

 

    

42. Zelizer 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（D）

    

(E)  
attitudes toward the marketplace