gwd 4---16

lsy1986

Historian:  Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus.  Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques.  It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent.  Researchers have, however, recently discovered notes of Leibniz’ that discuss one of Newton’s books on mathematics.  Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz’ own development of calculus concepts and techniques, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false.  A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however.  Leibniz’ notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented.

 

In the historian’s reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

 

1. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.
2. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.
3. The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.
4. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.
5. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.

第一个地方为什么是个支持历史学家想批判的结论

的证据？

还有，历史学家自己的立场是什么？ 是　the traditional view is false？

召唤牛哥牛姐们～～～

simonshen

我认为答案是D

分析一下整段话：

历史学家：牛顿发展了奠定现代微积分基础的概念和技巧。Leibniz发展出了很类似的概念和技巧。传统观点认为他们两人的发现是各不相关的。然而，最近有研究人员发现了一些Leibniz的笔记，这些笔记探讨的是一本牛顿写的关于数学的书。一些学者认为，由于这本书中有一个关于牛顿的微积分概念和技巧的篇章，并且由于这些笔记是Leibniz在发展出他自己的微积分概念以前记下的，所以基本可以肯定，传统的观点（即，他们两人的发现是各不相关的）是错误的。然而此结论似乎不够审慎，（因为）Leibniz的笔记内容仅限于牛顿那本书的前面一些部分，而牛顿的微积分概念是在这本书的后面部分才提到的。

 

这段话很复杂哦，为了理清关系，要搞清楚五个主体。牛顿和Leibniz是讨论的焦点，另外还有历史学家(historian)、研究人员(researchers)和学者(scholars)。总的意思大致是，传统认为牛和L两人的研究成果各不相关，但最近有研究人员发现了L的一些笔记，导致一些学者认为传统观念不对，即L是参照牛的经验做出的研究。理由是，牛的书是关于微积分的，而写这些笔记的时候L还没有发展出自己的微积分概念。但历史学家对这些学者的观点予以否定，认为其结论不够审慎。理由是，L的笔记的内容仅限于牛书的前几张，而那书在后几章里才讲到微积分，即很可能L没看到牛书里关于微积分的部分，那么L还是自己独立发展出他的微积分概念的，即传统观点还是对的，这就是历史学家的观点。

第一个boldface “由于这些笔记是Leibniz在发展出他自己的微积分概念以前记下的”，是学者用来支持他们论点（即传统观点是错的）的evidence，而学者的观点正是历史学家criticize的，所以The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes。第二个boldface是历史学家用来支持自己观点的evidence.