- UID
- 719868
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-2-9
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
观点1……例子……观点2。 作者的意图是什么? 肯定是支持观点1,观点2和观点1一定是同一战线上的,只不过是对观点1所作的延伸。 我是怎么知道作者的这个意图的呢? 因为作者用了例子这个手法。在观点1和观点2之间,举个例子作为观点1的支撑,并作为把观点1和观点2联系起来的桥梁 ----------------------------------------------- 我觉得OG13 384页那段才能更好的体现作者的这种结构, In the seventeenth-century Florentine textile industry, women were employed primarily in low- 观点1 paying, low-skill jobs. To explain this segregation------------------------- of labor by gender, economists have relied on the useful theory of human capital.According to this theory, investment in human capital—the 例子 acquisition of difficult job-related skills—generally benefits individuals by making them eligible to engage in well-paid occupations. Women's role as child bearers, however, results in interruptions in their participation inthe job market (as compared with men's) and thus reduces their opportunities to acquire training for highly skilled work. In addition, the human capital theory explains why there was a high concentration of women workers incertain low-skill jobs, such as weaving, but not in others, such as combing or carding, by positing that because of their primary responsibility in child rearing women took occupations that could be carried out in the home. ---------------------------------------------------------- There were, however, differences in pay scales 观点1的延续,对观点1进行了进一步的 that cannot be explained by the human capital 评论,提出了观点1的局限性。 theory. For example, male construction workers were paid significantly higher wages than female taffeta weavers. The wage difference between these two low-skill occupations stems from the segregation of labor by gender: because a limited number of occupations were open to women, there was a large supply of workers in their fields, and this "overcrowding" resulted in women receiving lowerwages and men receiving higher wages. |
|