题目内容
TEXT A In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of their two year old was told that since the child had made no real economic contribution to the family, there was no liability for damages. In contrast, less than a century later, in 1979, the parents of a three year old sued in New York for accidental-death damages and won an award of $750,0O0. The transformation in social values implicit in juxtaposing these two incidents is the subject of Viviana Zelizer’s excellent book, Pricing the Priceless Child. 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 pan on the assumption that a child’s emotional value made child labor taboo. For Zelizer the origins of this transformation were many and complex, The gradual erosion of children’s productive value in a maturing industrial economy, the decline in birth and death rates, especially in child mortality, and the development of the companionate family (a family in which members were united by explicit bonds of love rather than duty) were all factors critical in changing the assessment of children’s worth. Yet "expulsion of children from the ’cash nexus,’ ... although clearly shaped by profound changes in the economic, occupational, and family structures," Zelizer maintains, "was also pan of a cultural process ’of sacralization’ of children’s lives." Protecting children from the crass business world became enormously important for late-nineteenth-century middle-class Americans, she suggests; this sacralization was a way of resisting what they perceived as the relentless corruption of human values by the marketplace. In stressing the cultural determinants of a child’s worth, Zelizer takes issue with practitioners of the new "sociological economics," who have analyzed such traditionally sociological topics as crime, marriage, education, and health solely in terms of their economic determinants. Allowing only a small role for cultural forces in the form of individual "preferences," these sociologists tend to view all human behavior as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain. Zelizer is highly critical of this approach, and emphasizes instead the opposite phenomenon: the power of social values to transform price. As children became more valuable in emotional terms, she argues, their "exchange" or "surrender" value on the market, that is, the conversion of their intangible worth into cash terms, became much greater. Which of the following statements of American families in 19th century can be inferred from the passage
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
TEXT B Replying to our Christmas "good guru guide", Peter Drunker, the grand old man of management theory, speculated that the word "guru" had become popular only because "charlatan" was too long a word for most headlines. Few people are easier to ridicule than management gums. Irrepressible self-publicists and slavish fashion-merchants, they make a splendid living out of recycling other people’s ideas ("chaos management"), coining euphemisms ("downsizing") and laboring the obvious ("managing by wandering around" or the customer is king"). Their books draw heavily on particular case studies—often out-of-date ones that have nasty knack of collapsing later. And their ideas change quickly. Tom Peters, once a self-confessed sycophant to the corporate behemoth, is now an apostle of the small, chaotic, "virtual" organization. Gurus do have their uses, however. Begin with the circumstantial evidence. In America, where management theories are treated with undue reverence, business is bouncing back. In Germany, where business schools hardly exist and management theory is widely seen as an oxymoron, many companies are in trouble. German business magazines are suddenly brimming with articles about "downsizing" and "business process re-engineering". In Japan firms are once again turning to business theories from America—just as their fathers learnt after the Second World War from American quality-control techniques. Coincidence does not prove causation: American firms were just as much in love with gurus when they ware doing badly. But the fact that Germans and Japanese are paying attention again does offer some dues. The most important point in favor of management theories is that they are on the side of change. In 1927 a group of psychologists studying productivity at Western Electric’s Hawthorne factory in Illinois found that workers increased their output whenever the level of lighting was changed, up or down. At the very least, theorists can make change easier by identifying problems, acting as scapegoats for managers—or simply making people think. A vested interest in change can lead to faddism. But, taken with a requisite dose of scepticism, it can be fine complacency-shaker. A second argument for gurus relates to knowledge. The best management theorists collect a lot of information about what makes firms successful. This varies from the highly technical, such as how to discount future cash flow, to softer organizational theories. Few would dispute the usefulness of the first. It is in the second area—the land of "flat hierarchies’ and "multi-functional teams"—that gums have most often stumbled against or contradicted each other. This knowledge is not obviously prodding a strategic recipe for success: there are too many variables in business, and if all competitors used the same recipe it would automatically cease to work. But it does provide something managers want: information about, and understanding of, other companies experience in trying out tactics—thinner management structures, handing power to workers, performance-related pay, or whatever. A good analogy may be with diets. There is no such thing as the "correct" diet, but it is clear that some foods, in some quantities, axe better for you than others: and it is also likely that the main virtue of following a diet is not what you eat but the fact that it forces you to think about it. If management diets come with a lot of hype and some snake-oil, so be it. Which of the following rifles is the most appropriate for the passage
TEXT D A "scientistic" view of language was dominant among philosophers and linguists who affected to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century, Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to right action, it might also be a means to distort truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned. If people are regarded only as machines guided by logic as they were be these "scientistic" thinkers, rhetoric is likely to be held in low regard: for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person. It presents its arguments first to the person as a rational being, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is respectfully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a characterizing feature of rhetoric that it goes beyond this and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It recalls relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances real or fictional—that are similar to our own circumstances. Such is the purpose of both historical accounts and fables in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears. Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. It takes into account what the "scientistic" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naive; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic. The passage suggests that to consider people as "thinking machines" (line 41) is to consider them as ______.
Questions 11-14 are based on the following passage. When is the professor in the office
TEXT C It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighborhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters. "My dear Mr. Bennet," said his lady to him one day, "have you heard that Netherfield Park is let at last" Mr. Bennet replied that he had not. "But it is," returned she; "for Mrs. Long has just been here, and she told me all about it." Mr. Bennet made no answer. "Do you not want to know who has taken it" cried his wife impatiently. "You want to tell me, and I have no objection to hearing it." This was invitation enough. "Why, my dear, you must know, Mrs. Long says that Netherfield is taken by a young man of large fortune from the north of England; that he came down on Monday in a chaise and four4 to see the place, and was so much delighted with it, that he agreed with Mr. Morris immediately; that he is to take possession before Michaelmas, and some of his servants are to be in the house by the end of next week." "What is his name" "Bingley." "Is he married or single" "Oh! Single, my dear, to be sure! A single man of large fortune; four or five thousand a year. What a fine thing for our girls!" "How so How can it affect them" "My dear Mr. Bennet," replied his wife, "how can you be so tiresome! You must know that I am thinking of his marrying one of them." "Is that his design in settling here" "Design! Nonsense, how can you talk so! But it is very likely that he may fall in love with one of them, and therefore you must visit him as soon as he comes." "I see no occasion for that. You and the girls may go, or you may send them by themselves, which perhaps will be still better, for as you are as handsome as any of them, Mr. Bingley may like you the best of the party." "My dear, you flatter me. I certainly have had my Shave of beauty, but I do not pretend to be anything extraordinary now. When a woman has five grown-up daughters, she ought to give over thinking of her own beauty." "In such cases, a woman has not often much beauty to think of." "But, my dear, you must indeed go and see Mr. Bingley when he comes into the neighborhood." "It is more than I engage for, I assure you." "But consider your daughters. Only think what an establishment it would be for one of them. Sir William and Lady Lucas are determined to go, merely on that account, for in general, you know, they visit no newcomers. Indeed you must go, for it will be impossible for us to visit him if you do not." "You are over-scrupulous, surely. I dare say Mr. Bingley will be very glad to see you; and I will send a few lines by you to assure him of my hearty consent to his marrying Whichever he chooses of the girls; though I must throw in a good word for my little Lizzy." "I desire you will do no such thing; Lizzy is not a bit better than the others; and I am sum she is not half so handsome as lane, nor half so good-humored as Lydia. But you are always giving her the preference." "They have none of them much to recommend them," replied he; "they are all silly and ignorant like other girls; but Lizzy has something more of quickness than her sisters." "Mr. Bennet, how can you abuse your own children in such a way You take delight in vexing me. You have no compassion for my poor nerves." "You mistake me, ray dear. I have a high respect for your nerves. They are my old friends. I have heard you mention them with consideration these last twenty years at least." Mr. Bennet was so odd a mixture of quick parts, sarcastic humor, reserve, and caprice, that the experience of three-and-twenty years had been insufficient to make iris wife understand his character. Her mind was less difficult to develop. She was a woman of mean understanding, little information, and uncertain temper. When she was discontented, she fancied herself nervous. The business of her life was to get her daughters married; its solace was visiting and news. Mrs. Bennet’s major concern in her life is ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付