GWD3-Q12 to Q15:说了他的优缺点， 怎么不是evaluate？

葛佳

GWD3-Q12 to Q15:

In its 1903 decision in the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United States Supreme Court rejected the efforts of three Native American tribes to prevent the opening of tribal lands to non-Indian settlement without tribal consent.In his study of the Lone Wolf case, Blue Clark properly emphasizes the Court’s assertion of a virtually unlimited unilateral power of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) over Native American affairs.But he fails to note the decision’s more far-reaching impact:shortly after Lone Wolf, the federal government totally abandoned negotiation and execution of formal written agreements with Indian tribes as a prerequisite for the implementation of federal Indian policy.Many commentators believe that this change had already occurred in 1871 when—following a dispute between the House and the Senate over which chamber should enjoy primacy in Indian affairs—Congress abolished the making of treaties with Native American tribes.But in reality the federal government continued to negotiate formal tribal agreements past the turn of the century, treating these documents not as treaties with sovereign nations requiring ratification by the Senate but simply as legislation to be passed by both houses of Congress. The Lone Wolf decision ended this era of formal negotiation and finally did away with what had increasingly become the empty formality of obtaining tribal consent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------Q12:The author of the passage is primarily concerned with

A.identifying similarities in two different theories

B.evaluating a work of scholarship

C.analyzing the significance of a historical event 【key】
D.debunking a revisionist interpretation

E.exploring the relationship between law and social reality

葛佳

up

windypig123

我觉得作者提出 BC的观点主要是为了说明 LW decision 具有很重要的历史意义 后面部分的内容都是在说LW做了啥。结果是啥。所以这个主题就是 LW的历史意义
而BC的提出只是一个引子而已

kun5850

还是不懂bc之间有啥本质请教大牛

boozy

B是说评价了一个学术成果；C是说分析一个历史事件的重要意义。

首句强调了历史事件本身，第二句提出了一个学者对事件的研究，第三句指出该研究的缺陷，第四句给出其他人对事件的观点，第五句提出其它事实，第六句评价历史事件的作用。

答案明显是C

boozy

从结构来看，第一句说明事实；第二、三句提出某种看法；第四、五句提出另外的观点；第六句总结事实的影响。

这下应该很清楚了吧？

像风一样离去

谢谢楼上的，我也清楚了。
阅读能力好差，文章结构都把握不清楚。

dayuyunhai

在1903年的LW案件中，三个美洲土著部落要求：在未得到部落同意的情况下禁止开放部落土地；这项要求被法院驳回。
在对本案的研究中，BC强调了法院对国会权力的声明——众议院和参议院对于土著部落的权力。但是BC忽视了本案的深远影响：LW案件后不久，联邦政府废除了执行土著政策的一个先决条件，这个条件要求和土著部落协商并取得书面协议。
许多评论家认为这个转变在1871年就发生了，随着众参两院对土著权力的争夺，国会不再和土著部落签约。但实际上，联邦政府继续和土著部落签约，直到跨越了那个世纪；这些签约不像和主权国家的签约那样需要参议院的批准，只是像立法一样要在国会两院通过。
LW案件结束了联邦政府和土著部落签约的时代，取消了已渐渐成为一种空洞形式的获得部落同意。

thecapricorn

好强大！！

hannah696

虽然大概懂了？但还是不明白L.W. 对印第安人实际的利益是什么呢？？
可以通过立法来争取自己的权利吗？对他们更公平？？
有没有更多的历史补充呢??求解答！！谢谢！