OG-7 对文章意思的不理解，题目只对了一题，请大家帮忙啊

welkin

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.

为什么原文第一段说，19世纪末期，认为孩子没有价值，而第二段却说在19世纪已经接受了孩子是emotionally priceless，这不是矛盾吗？我怎么读怎么不懂，完全无法理解作者的观点，结果后面的题目只有第一题对了，其余全错，郁闷

求大家帮忙啊....[em06]

wangyu73cn

不矛盾。19世纪的渐进过程，虽然逐渐在改变不同阶层对孩子价值的认识。但并没有能在19世纪末时影响到法院的判决依据。法律这个上层建筑的变革相对缓慢。

welkin

说的对哦，看来还是文章的意思没有把握好，感谢版主