问两个阅读题

谦虚的小公鸡UID: 2961678

Some recent historians have argued that life in the British colonies in America from approximately 1763 to 1789 was marked by internal conflicts among colonists. Inheritors of some of the viewpoints of early twentieth-century Progressive historians such as Beard and Becker, these recent historians have put forward arguments that deserve evaluation.
The kind of conflict most emphasized by these historians is class conflict. Yet with the Revolutionary War dominating these years, how does one distinguish class conflict within that larger conflict? Certainly not by the side a person supported. Although many of these historians have accepted the earlier assumption that Loyalists represented an upper class, new evidence indicates that Loyalists, like rebels, were drawn from all socioeconomic classes. (It is nonetheless probably true that a larger percentage of the well-to-do joined the Loyalists than joined the rebels.) Looking at the rebel side, we find little evidence for the contention that lower-class rebels were in conflict with upper-class rebels. Indeed, the war effort against Britain tended to suppress class conflicts. Where it did not, the disputing rebels of one or another class usually became Loyalists. Loyalism thus operated as a safety valve to remove socioeconomic discontent that existed among the rebels. Disputes occurred, of course, among those who remained on the rebel side, but the extraordinary social mobility of eighteenth-century American society (with the obvious exception of slaves) usually prevented such disputes from hardening along class lines. Social structure was in fact so fluid—though recent statistics suggest a narrowing of economic opportunity as the latter half of the century progressed—that to talk about social classes at all requires the use of loose economic categories such as rich, poor, and middle class, or eighteenth-century designations like “the better sort.” Despite these vague categories, one should not claim unequivocally that hostility between recognizable classes cannot be legitimately observed. Outside of New York, however, there were very few instances of openly expressed class antagonism.
Having said this, however, one must add that there is much evidence to support the further claim of recent historians that sectional conflicts were common between 1763 and 1789. The “Paxton Boys” incident and the Regulator movement are representative examples of the widespread, and justified, discontent of western settlers against colonial or state governments dominated by eastern interests. Although undertones of class conflict existed beneath such hostility, the opposition was primarily geographical. Sectional conflict—which also existed between North and South—deserves further investigation.
In summary, historians must be careful about the kind of conflict they emphasize in eighteenth-century America. Yet those who stress the achievement of a general consensus among the colonists cannot fully understand that consensus without understanding the conflicts that had to be overcome or repressed in order to reach it.

17.
The author considers the contentions made by the recent historians discussed in the passage to be
(A) potentially verifiable
(B) partially justified
(C) logically contradictory
(D) ingenious but flawed
(E) capricious and unsupported


为何选B不选C？


20.
The passage suggests that the author would be likely to agree with which of the following statements about the social structure of eighteenth-century American society?
I.
It allowed greater economic opportunity than it did social mobility.
II.
It permitted greater economic opportunity prior to 1750 than after 1750.
III.
It did not contain rigidly defined socioeconomic divisions.
IV.
It prevented economic disputes from arising among members of the society.
(A) I and IV only
(B) II and III only
(C) III and IV only
(D) I, II, and III only
(E) I, II, III, and IV


为何IV不对？对应原文应该是Disputes occurred, of course, among those who remained on the rebel side, but the extraordinary social mobility of eighteenth-century American society (with the obvious exception of slaves) usually prevented such disputes from hardening along class lines.这句吧。

hua11UID: 3027785

17、C指的是逻辑上矛盾的。作者批驳了一些史学家的观点——他们强调阶级冲突。

第2段作者认为阶级冲突是难以辨别的，不能从来自各阶层的忠诚分子或者反叛分子两种立场来判断。段末作者强调在纽约(州)以外没有发现明显阶级矛盾的例子。

第3段作者认为sectional conflicts仍是值得研究的。
总之，作者的态度是怀疑态度，认为证据不足。

20、作者说18世纪美国社会结构防止沿阶级路线爆发冲突，不是指社会所有成员。IV不对。

谦虚的小公鸡UID: 2961678

2# hua11
我以为class line就体现在广大民众的看法上了……谢谢你的回答！