寄托天下 寄托天下
查看: 4842|回复: 3

[备考日记] 请教一道历史类长阅读 [复制链接]

Rank: 2

声望
50
寄托币
39
注册时间
2018-3-7
精华
0
帖子
10
发表于 2018-5-2 17:24:12 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Cassatus 于 2018-5-2 17:28 编辑

Historian E.H Carr’s thesis that all debates concerning the explanation of historical phenomena revolve around the question of the priority of causes is so familiar to historians as to constitute orthodoxy within their profession. The true historian, as Carr puts it, will feel a professional obligation to place the multiple causes of a historical event in a hierarchy by means of which the primary or ultimate cause of the event can be identified. In the Marxist mode of historical explanation (historical materialism), a universal hierarchy of causes is posited in which economic factors are always primary. In the classic, more widely accepted alternative ultimately derived from Weberian sociology, hierarchies of causes are treated as historically specific: explanatory primacy in any particular historical situation must be established by empirical investigation of that situation, not by applying a universal model of historical causation.

While the need to rank historical causes in some order of importance may seem obvious to most historians, such hierarchies raise serious philosophical difficulties. If any historical event is the product of a number of factors, then each of these factor is indispensable to the occurrence of the event. But how can one cause be more indispensable than another? And if it cannot, how can there be a hierarchy of indispensable causes? It was this problem that first led Weber himself to argue for the impossibility of any general formula specifying the relative importance of causes; we cannot, for example, conclude that in every capitalist society religious change has been more significant than economic change (or vice versa) in explaining the rise of capitalism.

Runciman offers a different argument leading to the same conclusion. He points out that it is possible to identify specific factors as the primary causes of a particular historical event only relative to an initial set of background conditions. For instance, if we accept English defeats after 1369 in the Hundred Years War as a given, then we may identify the high levels of taxation necessitated by these military reverses as the main cause of the Peasants Revolt of 1381. If instead we regard the financing of warfare by taxation in this period as a background condition, then we will see the English reverses themselves as the main cause of the revolt. However, neither ordinary life nor historical practice offer reliable criteria by which to distinguish causes from background conditions and thus to resolve historical debates about the relative importance of causes. And this difficulty casts doubt not only on the Marxist effort to identify a universal hierarchy of causes, but also on any attempt to identify an objective hierarchy of causes–even of the historically specific kind favored by non-Marxists.

1. The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. compare two prominent models of historical explanation
B. undermine non-Marxist objections to the historical-materialist explanatory model of historical
causation
C. analyze ways in which the question of historical causation can be illuminated by Weberian
sociology
D. challenge an orthodox position concerning historical explanation
E. argue that historical analysis should rely more on empirical investigation than on philosophical reflection

2. According to the passage, most historians share the assumption that
A. The most useful current model of historical causation is the historical-materialist model.
B. Explaining a historical event requires ranking its causes by importance.
C. The same hierarchy of causes underlies every historical event.
D. Philosophical debates have limited utility for historical practice.
E. Different causes of the same historical event sometimes have the same importance.

3. In the second paragraph of the passage, the author uses the concept of an indispensable cause primarily in order to question which of the following claims?
A. Generalizations about the origins of capitalist societies are defensible.
B. The study of history is largely independent of philosophical concerns.
C. A universal model of historical causation is indefensible.
D. A historical event is caused by many factors.
E. A hierarchy of the causes of a historical event can be determined.

4. Which of the following best describes the organization of the passage?
A. An assumption is identified and called into question.
B. Opposing views are compared, contrasted, and shown to be compatible.
C. An argument is advanced, criticized, and then revised.
D. A theory is shown to be superior to its chief rival.
E. Similar arguments are shown to lead to different conclusions.
回应

使用道具 举报

Rank: 2

声望
50
寄托币
39
注册时间
2018-3-7
精华
0
帖子
10
发表于 2018-5-2 17:28:35 |显示全部楼层
答案是DBEA

但是我认为第三题应该选C,因为第二段基本围绕原文"It was this problem that first led Weber himself to argue for the impossibility of any general formula specifying the relative importance of causes这句话"。与C选项“a universal model of historical causation is indefensible”相对应

使用道具 举报

声望
30
寄托币
1148
注册时间
2010-10-1
精华
0
帖子
57
发表于 2018-5-23 20:51:34 |显示全部楼层
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽

使用道具 举报

Rank: 2

声望
50
寄托币
29
注册时间
2018-5-25
精华
0
帖子
9
发表于 2018-5-25 19:39:25 |显示全部楼层
我觉得重点在题干上:... in order to question which of the following claims. question指的是质疑,要提出相反观点和论述。

使用道具 举报

RE: 请教一道历史类长阅读 [修改]
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

问答
Offer
投票
面经
最新
精华
转发
转发该帖子
请教一道历史类长阅读
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-2167112-1-1.html
复制链接
发送
报offer 祈福 爆照
回顶部