OG-7-39

GreenHorse

39. Which of the following alternative explanations of the change in the cash value of children would be most likely
to be put forward by sociological economists as they are described in the passage?

(B) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because their expected earnings over the course of
a lifetime increased greatly.

(D) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because compulsory education laws reduced the
supply, and thus raised the costs, of available child labor.

B is the best answer.
According to the author, practitioners of the new “sociological economics” explain sociological
phenomena “solely in terms of their economic determinants” and “tend to view all human
behavior as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain’ (lines 85-98). This
choice provides just such an economic explanation for the nineteenth-century rise in the cash
value of children.

D uses an economic argument to explain the change, but here the economic factors at work
are the result of a change.

不明白，有点强词夺理啊。

vincent0330

本文的第二段明显给出因果关系:

During the nineteenth century, she argues, the concept of the “useful” child who contributed to the family economy gave way gradually to the present-day notion of the “useless” child who, though producing no income for, and indeed extremely costly to, its parents, is yet considered emotionally “priceless.” Well established among segments of the middle and upper classes by the mid-1800’s, this new view of childhood spread throughout society in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries as reformers introduced child-labor regulations and compulsory education laws predicated in part on the assumption that a child’s emotional value made child labor taboo.

换言之, emotional price的提高------->child-labor regulations and compulsory education laws

所以(D)是因果颠倒, 正如OG所解释的...

GreenHorse

换言之, emotional price的提高------->child-labor regulations and compulsory education laws

所以(D)是因果颠倒, 正如OG所解释的...

惭愧。我没看出来因果颠倒。问的是“假设SOCIOLOGIST”会给个什么解释。

39. Which of the following alternative explanations of the change in the cash value of children would be most likely
to be put forward by sociological economists as they are described in the passage?

(D) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because compulsory education laws reduced the
supply, and thus raised the costs, of available child labor.

D uses an economic argument to explain the change, but here the economic factors at work
are the result of a change. 后面不是THE CHANGE

B:their expected earnings over the course of a lifetime increased greatly. 也可能是一个the result of a change。

是不是说，SOCIOLOGIST如果用D来解释，如果被进一步问D的原因，仍然是一个EMOTIONAL DETERMINAT？

再请高人指点！

fair_sword

a change 导致economic factors at work
答案又用economic factors 来解释change, 是因果倒置。

不过偶觉得这个是个无关选项。

drift_er

According to the author, practitioners of the new “sociological economics” explain sociological
phenomena “solely in terms of their economic determinants

用经济因素去解释，只有BD都用到了经济的因素，比较BD

D人是经济（生产）中的一个要素，但其并不等同与原料等，其价格在于其创造的价值，由于儿童创造的价值不可能向文中所说的增加量，故认为D不太好。仅供参考。

swlfx

顶。

司香尉

我觉得OG的意思是答案D因为因果倒置本身就是错的，而且还不是sociological economics的意见。

coolhany

我认为从第二段可看出change导致compulsory education，D又用education来解释change，就是循环论证了。所以D错

coolhany

我认为从第二段可看出change导致compulsory education，D又用education来解释change，就是循环论证了。所以D错