ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1470|回复: 6
打印 上一主题 下一主题

og-7,没人问过的,37,41。。。

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2006-7-15 23:25:00 | 只看该作者

og-7,没人问过的,37,41。。。

有时真得很汗颜自己。。。人家问过的题目自己总是能蒙对,没有前辈讨论的题目自己却搞不定。。。大家不要笑偶

 

请nn不吝赐教阿!我怎么就是不太明白。。。

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. ” 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 “ surrender” value on the market, that is, the conversion of

their intangible worth into cash terms, became much

greater.

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 schoolC

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

 

定位于上面相同颜色。我觉得他问的是1800前期的情况。那么根据文中的意思,小孩应该是对家庭没有经济贡献的呀,把没有经济贡献的小孩看作是无价的是1800后起的情况了呀?

 


   

(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 schoolC

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

 

定位于上面相同颜色。我觉得他问的是1800前期的情况。那么根据文中的意思,小孩应该是对家庭没有经济贡献的呀,把没有经济贡献的小孩看作是无价的是1800后起的情况了呀?

 

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.

 

这替我对答案没有异议,我只是想问e选项和c的意思也很相近吧!虽然c显然是原文改写,但是e也挺对的吧?

 

 

 

 


   


[此贴子已经被作者于2006-7-15 23:30:48编辑过]
沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2006-7-15 23:32:00 | 只看该作者
怎么编辑都有冗余。。。不好意思啊。。。希望不会影响阅读
板凳
发表于 2006-7-17 10:50:00 | 只看该作者

38.  是指以前小孩需要赚钱贴补家用所以 important to the economic well-being of a family

41. more emotionally bonded 和 more economically dependent 的相似度在哪里? 两个不同的字.

地板
 楼主| 发表于 2006-7-30 21:38:00 | 只看该作者

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

这不是应该说明小孩子对于家庭来说没有经济贡献么?既然称之为child,就是没有经济贡献里的小孩子啊。。。(死缠烂打的表现。。。斑竹多多包涵。。。)虽然纵观所有答案,确实只有c合适,但是如果e变成 (E) were financial burdens assumed for the good of family,我想,我就会选e乐。。。

 

41的话,都是表示情感上的互相依靠阿~

 

是不是有些钻牛角尖了。。。

不好意思了。。。就这题,我可能跟他干上了。。。

5#
发表于 2006-7-31 09:04:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用anniya在2006-7-30 21:38:00的发言:

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

这不是应该说明小孩子对于家庭来说没有经济贡献么?既然称之为child,就是没有经济贡献里的小孩子啊。。。(死缠烂打的表现。。。斑竹多多包涵。。。)虽然纵观所有答案,确实只有c合适,但是如果e变成 (E) were financial burdens assumed for the good of family,我想,我就会选e乐。。。

 

41的话,都是表示情感上的互相依靠阿~

 

是不是有些钻牛角尖了。。。

不好意思了。。。就这题,我可能跟他干上了。。。

38我也想不通,也觉得事实是小孩对家庭经济没有贡献的,但可不可以反过来想,小孩只会花钱是家里得负担,那时候家庭和社会又只以economic为标准,所以也是important to the well-being of family.

至于41,这两个词的差别大了。。。

继续讨论

6#
 楼主| 发表于 2006-7-31 19:42:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用roric在2006-7-31 9:04:00的发言:

38我也想不通,也觉得事实是小孩对家庭经济没有贡献的,但可不可以反过来想,小孩只会花钱是家里得负担,那时候家庭和社会又只以economic为标准,所以也是important to the well-being of family.

至于41,这两个词的差别大了。。。

继续讨论

嗯!plausable!

谢谢~

不过总觉得有点牵强,毕竟important是褒义词把。。。

 

就这样了!这个题就这么理解了!

41我就不在这丢人了。。。哈哈

roric 节日快乐哈!
    

这两天看见你很多帖子了!看得出来是很用心的mm哟!以后多多讨论呀!

7#
发表于 2006-7-31 20:41:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用anniya在2006-7-31 19:42:00的发言:

嗯!plausable!

谢谢~

不过总觉得有点牵强,毕竟important是褒义词把。。。

 

就这样了!这个题就这么理解了!

41我就不在这丢人了。。。哈哈

roric 节日快乐哈!
 

这两天看见你很多帖子了!看得出来是很用心的mm哟!以后多多讨论呀!

节日快乐~~~~抢我台词。。。。。。。。

偶学习阿q精神,要当牛就要皮厚,反正谁也不认识我,就使劲的贴吧HOHOHO~~

是啊多多讨论

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, 2025-7-7 04:23
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