向热心的LZ求教PREP1 RC1 Essay 6~~大谢~

mousehyl777

Essay #6.  145    (21972-!-item-!-188;#058&00145-00)

Colonial historian David Allen's intensive study of five communities in seventeenth-century Massachusetts is a model of meticulous scholarship on the detailed microcosmic level, and is convincing up to a point.  Allen suggests that much more coherence and direct continuity existed between English and colonial agricultural practices and administrative organization than other historians have suggested.  However, he overstates his case with the declaration that he has proved "the remarkable extent to which diversity in New England local institutions was directly imitative of regional differences in the mother country."

Such an assertion ignores critical differences between seventeenth-century England and New England.  First, England was overcrowded and land-hungry; New England was sparsely populated and labor-hungry.  Second, England suffered the normal European rate of mortality; New England, especially in the first generation of English colonists, was virtually free from infectious diseases.  Third, England had an all-embracing state church; in New England membership in a church was restricted to the elect.  Fourth, a high proportion of English villagers lived under paternalistic resident squires; no such class existed in New England.  By narrowing his focus to village institutions and ignoring these critical differences, which studies by Greven, Demos, and Lockridge have shown to be so important, Allen has created a somewhat distorted picture of reality.

Allen's work is a rather extreme example of the "country community" school of seventeenth-century English history whose intemperate excesses in removing all national issues from the history of that period have been exposed by Professor Clive Holmes.  What conclusion can be drawn, for example, from Allen's discovery that Puritan clergy who had come to the colonies from East Anglia were one-third to one-half as likely to return to England by 1660 as were Puritan ministers from western and northern England?  We are not told in what way, if at all, this discovery illuminates historical understanding.  Studies of local history have enormously expanded our horizons, but it is a mistake for their authors to conclude that village institutions are all that mattered, simply because their functions are all that the records of village institutions reveal.


Question #19.  145-07    (22110-!-item-!-188;#058&000145-07)

It can be inferred from the passage that the author of the passage considers Allen's "discovery" (see highlighted text) to be

(A) already known to earlier historians
(B) based on a logical fallacy
(C) improbable but nevertheless convincing
(D) an unexplained, isolated fact
(E) a new, insightful observation

分析：读完原文知道作者对Allen's "discovery"的方向是负评价，先把C，E排除。第二段首句：Such an assertion ignores（负评价） critical differences between seventeenth-century England and New England. 第三段首句：Allen's work is a rather extreme example（对应fact） of the "country community" school of seventeenth-century English history whose intemperate excesses in removing all national issues from the history of that period have been exposed by Professor Clive Holmes.

B应该是没有提到，但是从最后一句：Studies of local history have enormously expanded our horizons, but it is a mistake for their authors to conclude that village institutions are all that mattered, simply because their functions are all that the records of village institutions reveal. 从划线部分看，似乎A也对，求解释！！

guozining

同问，没有高手来解答么，从那体现出来答案是D的啊

cc621josh

既然expand our horizons了，就不是already known to eariler historians. A错
D对，因为unexplained, isolated呼应原文中的"We are not told in what way"

我一开始也错了，我选了B

tintinc

今天模考这道我也错了求RP

Studies of local history have enormously expanded our horizons, but it is a mistake for their authors to conclude that village institutions are all that mattered, simply because their functions are all that the records of village institutions reveal.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author of the passage considers Allen's "discovery" (see highlighted text) to be

(A) already known to earlier historians
(B) based on a logical fallacy
(C) improbable but nevertheless convincing
(D) an unexplained, isolated fact
(E) a new, insightful observation

我选了B. 从引用的这段来看，两个关键点是expand horizons和mistake，那B是错在logical? 那D的isolated fact所指的是什么？

Mrfish

我在想跟后面的 Studies of local history have enormously...关系不大吧。
We are not told in what way, if at all, this discovery illuminates historical understanding.
作者说, 我们没有被告诉那样的话，如果告诉了，那么A人的这个发现就会引发历史思考（不知道翻译的对不对）。这里是负评价没错，可是我感觉B就说的特别负，依据一个错误的逻辑而来的DISCOVERY, 如果这个DISCOVERY都已经确定是错误逻辑了，那还引发历史思考个P呀，不用思考了，就是错的。但是，如果是D, 即一个无法解释的, 比较孤立的一个FACT的话，那么还是有可能让大家思考那么一下下的，这个题我也想了半天，最后我选了D，我自己对我自己唯一的解释就是这样。哈哈哈哈，纯属个人意见，我想肯定是有更加合理更加正确的解释。

Mrfish

不过我很想知道第20题
The author of the passage is primarily concerned with

(A) substantiating a claim about a historical event
(B) reconciling two opposing ideas about a historical era
(C) disputing evidence a scholar uses to substantiate a claim about a historical event
(D) analyzing two approaches to scholarly research and evaluating their methodologies
(E) criticizing a particular study and the approach to historical scholarship it represents

我就在C E中徘徊, 最后还选的C, 我想着作者反驳A人的证据，说他的证据不全面，FOCUS的很狭隘么，可是为什么错了捏? 问题有点弱智，可是我就是这种文章主旨题总是错，占用LZ的帖问个问题喔，希望好心人解答啊，THX!!!!