求教：OG-7，谢谢。

esprit

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 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.

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.

(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

OG阅读39

Which of th 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?

谁能帮我解释一下题目文的是什么意思?没看懂~~~

在文中那里体现了答案？

OG阅读42

Zelier refers to all of the following as important influences in changing the assessment of children’s worth except changes in

如果我没有理解错的话，题目问的是influences，而答案给的却是line 25-31 的factors,又是怎么回事呢？原因应该发生在前，影响应该发生在后阿，他们是一回事么？

谢谢。

PHDman

"以下哪个说法最符合文中提到的社会经济学家对儿童现金价值变化的理解？"

文中：“sociological economics,” who have analyzed such traditionally sociological topics as crime, marriage, education, and health solely in terms of their economic determinants. 表明他们只从经济的角度分析问题。

(B) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because their expected earnings over the course of a lifetime increased greatly.儿童的期望收入增加，导致儿童的现金价值增加。

“influences in changing the assessment”表明问的是导致对儿童评估价值变化的影响因素，若是influence of 则是...的影响，你把它理解成后一种解释了。

cw_chan

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.

红色形容词部分修饰 values 还是 transformation, 有这种n+adj 作主语吗?