Magoosh一道very hard的阅读题求助

Leon-WangUID: 2772364

The historical basis for the King Arthur legend has long been debated by scholars. One school of thought, citing entries in the History of the Britons and Welsh Annals, sees Arthur as a genuine historical figure, a Romano-British leader who fought against the invading Anglo-Saxons sometime in the late 5th to early 6th century.  The other text that seems to support the case for Arthur's historical existence is the 10th-century Annales Cambriae. The latest research shows that the Annales Cambriae was based on a chronicle begun in the late 8th century in Wales. Additionally, the complex textual history of the Annales Cambriae precludes any certainty that the Arthurian annals were added to it even that early. They were more likely added at some point in the 10th century and may never have existed in any earlier set of annals.

This lack of convincing early evidence is the reason many recent historians exclude Arthur from their accounts of post-Roman Britain. In the view of historian Thomas Charles-Edwards believes that there may well have been an historical Arthur, but that a historian can as yet say nothing of value about him. These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend; earlier generations of historians were less skeptical. Historian John Morris made the putative reign of Arthur the organizing principle of his history of post-Roman Britain and Ireland. Even so, he found little to say about a historical Arthur. Partly in reaction to such theories, another school of thought emerged which argued that Arthur had no historical existence at all. Morris's Age of Arthur prompted archaeologist Nowell Myres to observe that no figure on the borderline of history and mythology has wasted more of the historian's time. Arthur is not mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or named in any surviving manuscript written between 400 and 820. He is absent from Bede's early-8th-century Ecclesiastical History of the English People, another major early source for post-Roman history.

Some scholars argue that Arthur was originally a fictional hero of folklore — or even a half-forgotten Celtic deity — who became credited with real deeds in the distant past. They cite parallels with figures such as the Kentish totemic horse-gods Hengest and Horsa, who later became historicized. Bede ascribed to these legendary figures a historical role in the 5th-century Anglo-Saxon conquest of eastern Britain.

Historical documents for the post-Roman period are scarce. Of the many post-Roman archeological sites and places, only a handful have been identified as "Arthurian", and these date from the 12th century or later.  Archaeology can confidently reveal names only through inscriptions found in reliably dated sites.  In the absence of new compelling information about post-Roman England,  a definitive answer to the question of Arthur's historical existence is unlikely.

多选题
According to the passage, which of the following can account for the difficulty of verifying the existence of an historical Arthur?

[A]The lack of archaeological sites dating from Arthur’s time.
[B]The fact that the life of Arthur closely parallels the life of another historical figure.
[C]The paucity of historical documents during the time of Arthur’s putative reign.

答案和解析见二楼。

Leon-WangUID: 2772364

Answer: (C)

(A) is tricky. The passage says that sites identified as “Arthurian” were from the 12th century and onward. According to the first paragraph Arthur existed much before that. At the same time, the passage is not saying that there was a lack of archeological sites during Arthur’s time, only that no “Arthurian site” dated from the time of Arthur.

(B) is incorrect. Though the second to last paragraph mentions that mythic figures were treated as actual figures, it does so in the context that perhaps Arthur too was a mythical figure. It does not say, however, that Arthur’s life closely paralleled that of another figure, historical or otherwise.

(C) is backed up by the first sentence in the final paragraph, “historical documents are…scarce.”

关键A的选项为什么错了，貌似里面的玄机很大，我看了解析还是没明白。

dula55UID: 3454251

有关亚瑟王的site和亚瑟王时期的site，前者缺乏，后者不一定缺乏。

Leon-WangUID: 2772364

dula55 发表于 2013-9-10 19:32
有关亚瑟王的site和亚瑟王时期的site，前者缺乏，后者不一定缺乏。

还是不太明白。原文中说：
Of the many post-Roman archeological sites and places, only a handful have been identified as "Arthurian", and these date from the 12th century or later.

因为identify的sites都是晚于authur真正存在时间（5-6世纪），这样我们不能推出正式因为缺少5-6世纪的site因此很困难吗？

crazyrobinUID: 2368627

A是没有提到过的。
第四段这里

Of the many post-Roman archeological sites and places, only a handful have been identified as "Arthurian", and these date from the 12th century or later.

是说12世纪的Arthurian site，但是第一段说Arthur应该早在这之前就出现了。

从这两个info，你并不能推断出arthur时期的sites are scarce. 原文从来没有提及过

Leon-WangUID: 2772364

crazyrobin 发表于 2013-9-10 19:53
A是没有提到过的。
第四段这里

第四段的那句话一直给我一种感觉就是他们一直找Arthurian的site但是找到都是12世纪以后的。（隐约感觉他们是想找arthur时代的，就是4、5世纪的），而且下面这句话：
Archaeology can confidently reveal names only through inscriptions found in reliably dated sites.
似乎在说他们要找到inscription in reliably dated sites（我以为指的就是4、5世纪的arthur的site）。

是不是我想多了？感觉这道题已经远远超出我的智商了。

crazyrobinUID: 2368627

Leon-Wang 发表于 2013-9-10 20:26
第四段的那句话一直给我一种感觉就是他们一直找Arthurian的site但是找到都是12世纪以后的。（隐约感觉他们 ...

你标黑的这句话什么也不代表，只能说 archeologist的证据来源。
他们的来源在于哪里并不代表那个时代Arthur的dated sites就缺少
或者用最简单话说就是你找不到并不能说是缺少。

你的理解是他们找不到，这个理解没错，但是你从找不到infer到缺少，这是很大的logic jump.
没有被发现不等于不存在和缺少

Leon-WangUID: 2772364

crazyrobin 发表于 2013-9-10 21:18
你标黑的这句话什么也不代表，只能说 archeologist的证据来源。
他们的来源在于哪里并不代表那个时代Art ...

茅塞顿开，醍醐灌顶的感觉，终于找到症结所在了！

我总是搞混两个概念：一个是客观事实，另一个是人们与客观事实的关系。大自然缺少这样的site，和我们（或者说历史学家）缺少这个site，是两个不同的概念。其他G友也谨防这种陷阱啊！

Ben果断是逻辑之神啊！看待问题太客观了！

zcnrexUID: 3459347

A错是因为解释里面说的

“the passage is not saying that there was a lack of archeological sites during Arthur’s time, only that no “Arthurian site” dated from the time of Arthur.”

作者只是说了缺少"Arthurian" archaeological site的证据，没有说缺少所有 archaeological site的证据。

而A选项只说了lack of archaeological site，没有强调是“Arthurian”，所有A选项错误，不是什么自然界存不存在的逻辑问题。

zcnrexUID: 3459347

2楼说的是对的

vngogherUID: 3391684

A说lack, 原文说only a handful. 一个是没有，一个是只有一点点。

uhoohooUID: 3490647

crazyrobin 发表于 2013-9-10 19:53
A是没有提到过的。
第四段这里

请问原文中第二段第三句话These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend; earlier generations of historians were less skeptical. 是什么意思呢？为什么要讲“modern admissions of ignorance”呢？早期历史学家“less skeptical”又是对什么less skeptical呢？

先谢谢啦！