[求助] pp test one--(111-120 )

liul781

Television's contribution to family life in the

United States has been an equivocal one.  For while

it has, indeed, kept the members of the family from

dispersing, it has not served to bring them together.  

By dominating the time families spend together, it

destroys the special quality that distinguishes one

family from another, a quality that depends to a great

extent on what a family does, what special rituals,

games, recurrent jokes, familiar songs, and shared

activities it accumulates.

    “Like the sorcerer of old,” writes Urie

Bronfenbrenner, “the television set casts its magic

spell, freezing speech and action, turning the living

into silent statues so long as the enchantment lasts.  

The primary danger of the television screen lies not

so much in the behavior it produces---although there

is danger there---as in the behavior it prevents:  the

talks, games, the family festivities, and arguments

through which much of the child's learning takes place

and through which character is formed.  Turning on the

television set can turn off the process that transforms

children into people.”

    Of course, families today still do special things

together at times:  go camping in the summer, go

to the zoo on a nice Sunday, take various trips and

expeditions.  But the ordinary daily life together is

diminished---that sitting around at the dinner table,

that spontaneous taking up of an activity, those little

games invented by children on the spur of the moment

when there is nothing else to do, the scribbling,

the chatting, the quarreling, all the things that form the

fabric of a family, that define a childhood.  Instead,

the children have their regular schedule of television

programs and bedtime, and the parents have their

peaceful dinner together.  But surely the needs of

adults are being better met than the needs of children,

who are effectively shunted away and rendered

untroublesome.  

    If the family does not accumulate its backlog of

shared experiences, shared everyday experiences

that occur and recur and change and develop,

then it is not likely to survive as anything other

than a caretaking institution.

120. It can be inferred from the passage

    that a caretaking institution is one in

    which care is given

       charitably  

       lovingly  

       constantly  

       impersonally

answer:    A       charitably            why?

划线部分如翻译？谢谢！

liul781

大家帮帮忙呀！！！

liul781