According to the conventional view, serfdom in nineteenth-century Russia inhibited economic growth. In this view Russian peasants’status as serfs kept them poor through burdensome taxes in cash, in labor, and in kind; through restrictions on mobility, and through various forms of coercion. Melton, however, argues that serfdom was perfectly compatible with economic growth, because many Russian serfs were able to get around landlord’rules and regulations. If serfs could pay for passports, they were usually granted permission to leave the estate. If they could pay the fine, they could establish a separate household; and if they had the resources, they could hire laborers to cultivate the communal lands, while they themselves engaged in trade or worked as migrant laborers in cities.
The highlighted sentence has which of the following functions in the passage?
A it provides support for an argument presented in the preceding sentence
B it provides evidence that helps undermine a view introduced in the first sentence
C it raises a question that the succeeding sentence will resolve
这里不是虚拟语气或者假设,如果是虚拟语气,应该是:
If serfs could pay for passports, they would have been granted permission to leave the estate.
如果是假设,那么应该是:
If serfs could pay for passports, they would be granted permission to leave the estate.
So, first, note that (B) states lines 10-11 provide evidence to undermine a view introduced in the first sentence.
What is this view? It is that serfdom in Russia limited the economic growth of peasants, because their status as serfs kept them poor -- they had more taxes, etc, but also because they had restrictions on mobility. So, the argument here is that "restriction on mobility" leads to being limited in economic growth.
Now look at the sentence in question:
"If serfs could pay for passports, they were usually granted permission to leave the estate."
This shows that in fact, serfs were not restricted in their mobility as long as they could pay for a passport. Therefore, in contrast to the argument introduced in the first sentence, serfs could move off of the estate. Therefore they were not necessarily limited in economic growth by a lack of mobility.
....
Note that the answer choice doesn't say that this sentence "refutes" the idea presented in the first sentence. It just says it "provides evidence that helps undermine a view..." So we have a little more breathing room here. Sure, maybe some serfs had passports and still remained poor. That's okay -- the answer choice isn't saying that this completely refutes the idea presented here. It just says it provides evidence that helps to weaken this view.