ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 7638|回复: 17
打印 上一主题 下一主题

大家帮忙分析一下OG22篇的两个问题[求助]

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2003-12-2 10:23:00 | 只看该作者

大家帮忙分析一下OG22篇的两个问题[求助]

这篇文章是讲The new school of political history和traditional都没有把women考虑进去,By redefining “political activity,” 某人把women考虑进去了。
发现自己在做主题题和句子作用题的时候,很容易被ets的干扰项迷惑。想请大家帮忙纠正一下我的思路有什么问题或说说ETS's trick。

谢谢了,文章在最后。

131.The primary purpose of the passage is to
(A) enumerate reason why both traditional scholarly methods and newer scholarly methods have limitations
(B) identify a shortcoming in a scholarly approach and describe an alternative approach
(C) provide empirical data to support a long-held scholarly assumption
(D) compare two scholarly publications on the basis of their authors’ backgrounds
(E) attempt to provide a partial answer to a long-standing scholarly dilemma

答案为B,但我看到a shortcoming in a scholarly approach就排除了,因为这个exclude women的shortcoming是new approach和old approach都有的。我认为原文是有三个approach.相反我选了E,因为我把new approach和old approach的shortcoming看作了dilemma,不知道我是不是就错在partial和dilemma这两个词的理解上?

133.It can be inferred that the author of the passage quotes Baker directly in the second paragraph primarily in order to
(A) clarify a position before providing an alternative of that position
(B) differentiate between a novel definition and traditional definitions
(C) provide an example of a point agreed on by different generations of scholars
(D) provide an example of the prose style of an important historian
(E) amplify a definition given in the first paragraph
答案为B,但我把definition误作为approach因而把B排除。其实新旧两个approach都是一个traditional definition。我选E,感觉虽然原文是redefine definitioin,但是这个definition只是include了women,所以还是把它看作是amplify.


原文:

The new school of political history that emerged in the 1960’s and 1970’s sought to go beyond the traditional focus of political historians on leaders and government institutions by examining directly the political practices of ordinary citizens. Like the old approach, however, this new approach excluded women. The very techniques these historians used to uncover mass political behavior in the nineteenth-century United States—quantitative analyses of election returns, for example—were useless in analyzing the political activities of women, who were denied the vote until 1920.
By redefining “political activity,” historian Paula Baker has developed a political history that includes women. She concludes that among ordinary citizens, political activism by women in the nineteenth century prefigured trends in twentieth-century politics. Defining “politics” as “any action taken to affect the course of behavior of government or of the community,” Baker concludes that, while voting and holding office were restricted to men, women in the nineteenth century organized themselves into societies committed to social issues such as temperance and poverty. In other words, Baker contends, women activists were early practitioners of nonpartisan, issue-oriented politics and thus were more interested in enlisting lawmakers, regardless of their party affiliation, on behalf of certain issues than in ensuring that one party or another won an election. In the twentieth century, more men drew closer to women’s ideas about politics and took up modes of issue-oriented politics that Baker sees women as having pioneered.

沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2003-12-4 00:02:00 | 只看该作者
顶啊!求助中。。。。。。
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2003-12-6 00:22:00 | 只看该作者
大家能不能谈谈当时做这两道题时是怎么选的?
地板
发表于 2003-12-7 19:25:00 | 只看该作者
本人水平有限,权当讨论。

第一题中,文章在第一段提及60s, 70s的new school, 与过去的traditional相对(后者基本没提)。 但是new school有不涉及女性,所以a shortcoming in a scholarly approach是对此而言。

那么第二段是文章重点,引出Baker的理论,即所谓an alternative approach了。

至于E为什么不对,是new school 和 traditional appproach都不涉及women,而baker的理论(加入女性研究)并不是解决他们之间的争论,即long-standing scholarly dilemma。前两者的不同在于focus of political historians on leaders and government institutions by examining directly the political practices of ordinary citizens. 这不是baker理论的重点。

希望有所帮助。
5#
 楼主| 发表于 2003-12-7 22:48:00 | 只看该作者
真是太感谢了!
欢迎大家各抒己见!
6#
发表于 2003-12-8 22:02:00 | 只看该作者
我也有类似疑问.在做题的时候,第一题我也觉得文章有3个approach,但是考虑再三,我还是选了B,主要是考虑到可以比较牵强的划分为两个大类,但是现在仍然保留疑问.
大家讨论.OG的解释怎么说的??我没有仔细看,我感觉OG的阅读解释似乎帮助有限,因为老是些什么C项文章没有提,所以错; D项错在不是作者的意思,之类.觉得好象言之无物.
不知道牛人们怎么看这个问题.
7#
 楼主| 发表于 2003-12-8 23:15:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用bipedalism在2003-12-8 22:02:00的发言:
我感觉OG的阅读解释似乎帮助有限,因为老是些什么C项文章没有提,所以错; D项错在不是作者的意思,之类.觉得好象言之无物.
不知道牛人们怎么看这个问题.


严重同意!
可能针对母语是英语的人看OG-RC解释有效.中国人的思维不同
自嘲而已,欢迎拍砖!
8#
发表于 2003-12-13 19:08:00 | 只看该作者
我不是N人,下礼拜考,对考试没什么信心。不过我想试着回答这个问题,因为感觉 seanql很急。先分析一下错因,我觉得你过于着重细节了,请注意这是主题题型。如果改成APPROACHES你是不是就选了?那问你一下,既然EXCLUDE WOMEN是两种APPROACHES共同的SHORTCOMING,它是不是NEW APPROACH的SHORTCOMING?如果是就OK了呀。你再仔细读一下第一段,提OLD APPROACH我认为只是为了提NEW APPROACH,说NEW APPROACH虽然改了,可是还有一点作者比较关注的方法没有,随后的BLABLABLA了。重点是新方法,旧方法你甚至可以把它当成细节,这篇文章的重点不是有几个APPROACH,而是SHORTCOMING是如何被确认和PAULA的研究。至于E,文章没提一个LONG-STANDING DILEMMA呀?哪个也没说SCORLAR们觉得DILEMMA,是作者自己非跳出来给妇女平反一下(其实理论千千万,作者就是想给女性出气,我觉得:)的,这个东东是你自己INFER出来的,觉得既然旧的新的都没改,那就是LONG-LASTING的ASSUMPTION了。其实大家都觉得OG的RC INTERPRETATIONS说了白说,可是你可以认真的去文章里找,它说没有的就真的没有,是你自己的INFER(ETS估计你这么想,它就出个选项给你上套),它在一遍遍教你做题,教你一切答案从文章里找。我做这题时就是看一遍就选了,没想这么多,就是凭感觉,感觉源自于对文章的总体把握,其实主题题我也老做错,呵呵主要是单词太差了,答得不好,太武断的话欢迎拍砖:)
9#
发表于 2004-6-8 09:22:00 | 只看该作者

对于这篇文章,我补充几点:

1,全文新老观点型. 一段老观点.二段新观点.

2,一段中,traditinal focus 和old approach是用来修饰.说明new school的.这段话说了new school的两个方面,一个优于traditional的方面,一个shortcoming. 就像我们常用的说话方式: 说这个MM很飘飘, 就是腰有点粗. 重心应该是在后面.

3,这个题我想了很长时间,觉得临场时,很难通过文章分析做出来.通过排除法回更好.

A,一段细节,而且混. C.发,且无assumption. D,无author's backrounds. E.无

10#
发表于 2005-6-7 22:53:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用seanql在2003-12-2 10:23:00的发言:
这篇文章是讲The new school of political history和traditional都没有把women考虑进去,By redefining “political activity,” 某人把women考虑进去了。
发现自己在做主题题和句子作用题的时候,很容易被ets的干扰项迷惑。想请大家帮忙纠正一下我的思路有什么问题或说说ETS's trick。

谢谢了,文章在最后。


133.It can be inferred that the author of the passage quotes Baker directly in the second paragraph primarily in order to
(A) clarify a position before providing an alternative of that position
(B) differentiate between a novel definition and traditional definitions
(C) provide an example of a point agreed on by different generations of scholars
(D) provide an example of the prose style of an important historian
(E) amplify a definition given in the first paragraph
答案为B,但我把definition误作为approach因而把B排除。其实新旧两个approach都是一个traditional definition。我选E,感觉虽然原文是redefine definitioin,但是这个definition只是include了women,所以还是把它看作是amplify.


我对133题的疑问与seanql相同请哪位nn帮忙解释一下为什么E不对?

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, 2025-6-2 00:28
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