求问PPII 第一套一个阅读,没做就别进来了~

若如此UID: 3649064

hard的一个阅读题,当时很确定排除了..结果.

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

我主要想问B选项..it provides evidence that..
evidence做n.时 意思是佐证,证据吧..也就是客观存在的事实吧

但是这句话 明明只是 作者的说法, 用来support他的argument 而且这个句子都是假设..完全没有evidence啊

想不通为什么B是对的,

若如此UID: 3649064

求解

qwhrp94UID: 3582413

这段话的意思LZ应该能够理解了。
这段话分为两层，第一层提出，surfdom阻碍经济发展，并举了具体哪些方面阻碍；第二层说有个人提出相反的观点，理由是领主的规则很有弹性，并举出了例子，就是加粗那句，后面是对那句话的更进一步说明。
这里的加粗句起到的是对M观点的一个【具体支持的例子】，同时也符合LZ说的客观性的要求，应该这样理解evidence吧。

若如此UID: 3649064

qwhrp94 发表于 2016-2-16 18:22
这段话的意思LZ应该能够理解了。
这段话分为两层，第一层提出，surfdom阻碍经济发展，并举了具体哪些方面阻 ...

不是例子吧..?

那个加粗的句子是 If...是假设吧,怎么是例子,例子不都是真实的事例之类的么

若如此UID: 3649064

qwhrp94 发表于 2016-2-16 18:22
这段话的意思LZ应该能够理解了。
这段话分为两层，第一层提出，surfdom阻碍经济发展，并举了具体哪些方面阻 ...

而且还是虚拟语气

qwhrp94UID: 3582413

若如此 发表于 2016-2-16 19:26
而且还是虚拟语气

这个不是假设，就是例子，如果要纠结语法的话，这里应该是过去时吧。
GRE的阅读，我个人的观点是，把重点放在内容上面，不要过于关注一个词或者语法之类的问题。

若如此UID: 3649064

qwhrp94 发表于 2016-2-16 20:53
这个不是假设，就是例子，如果要纠结语法的话，这里应该是过去时吧。
GRE的阅读，我个人的观点是，把重点 ...

额.我今天是头一次注意语法..

但是这句话的意思是:  如果农奴能够支付护照的钱,他们就能经常被得到允许离开这鬼地方.

我当时的理解是这句话出现了if啊,所以只能是补充说明Melton的观点的一个细节,怎么能作为evidence呢,evidence不是事例等客观存在的吗?这里if就说明可能存在而已

岳然UID: 3654715

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.

其实都不用看语法，如果语感好的话，读到原句里的usually就说明这是在陈述事实了。

若如此UID: 3649064

岳然 发表于 2016-2-17 04:00
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 hav ...

哦哦对哦..语法没学好

那这个if有什么用..?我就是被这个if欺骗了..

岳然UID: 3654715

若如此 发表于 2016-2-17 07:40
哦哦对哦..语法没学好

那这个if有什么用..?我就是被这个if欺骗了..

用来讨论不同的情况，即serfs有哪些办法可以 get around landlords’ rules and regulations

若如此UID: 3649064

岳然 发表于 2016-2-17 18:14
用来讨论不同的情况，即serfs有哪些办法可以 get around landlords’ rules and regulations

咦噢,,结合文章最后一句话才好理解这个evidence

若如此UID: 3649064

补充说明: Magoosh的解答过程

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.

Roger147UID: 3841715

求问，此题为什么不能选A呢，支持了说serfdom 能够与经济compatible的观点