Behind every book review there are two key figures: a book review editor and a reviewer. Editors decide whether a book is reviewed in their publication, when the review appears, how long it is, and who writes the review.
When many periodicals feature the same books, this does not prove that the editors of different periodicals have not made individual decisions. Before publication, editors receive news releases and printer’s proofs of certain books, signifying that the publishers will make special efforts to promote these books. They will be heavily advertised and probably be among the books that most bookstores order in quantity. Not having such books reviewed might give the impression that the editor was caught napping, whereas too many reviews of books that readers will have trouble finding in stores would be inappropriate. Editors can risk having a few of the less popular titles reviewed, but they must consider what will be newsworthy, advertised, and written about elsewhere.
If these were the only factors influencing editors, few books that stand little chance of selling well would ever be reviewed. But editors feel some concern about what might endure, and therefore listen to literary experts. A generation ago, a newspaper used a brilliant system of choosing which books to feature. The book review editor sent out a greater number of books than reviews he actually intended to publish. If a review was unenthusiastic, he reasoned that the book was not important enough to be discussed immediately, and if good reviews of enough other books came in, the unenthusiastic review might never be printed. The unenthusiastic reviewers were paid promptly anyway, but they learned that if they wanted their material to be printed, it was advisable to be kind.
Most editors print favorable and unfavorable reviews; however, the content of the review may be influenced by the editor. Some editors would actually feel that they had failed in their responsibility if they gave books by authors they admired to hostile critics or books by authors they disapproved of to critics who might favor them. Editors usually can predict who would review a book enthusiastically and who would tear it to shreds.
Which of the following words, if substituted for “brilliant” in line 26, would LEAST change the meaning of the sentence?
showy
articulate
literate
stingy
Absurd
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 C。用 literate 替换 brilliant 并不会改变句子原有的意思,应为他们都表达了一种“聪明”或“出色”的含义。showy(博而不实或炫耀)、articulate(雄辩的或有口才的)、stingy(小气的)和absurd(荒谬的)这些词的意思都与brilliant相去甚远。
这篇比第二篇更让我崩溃
We are told that the unenthusiastic reviewers quickly learned that if they wanted their material to be printed, it was advisable to be kind.
只能通过后面的内容来判断brilliant的具体含义。。。。这就相当于日常说的,这个检错系统非常牛啊,我写了一篇文章,连个拼写错误都检查不出来。。。
showy, articulate,literate,stingy 這4個單字完全不知道什麼意思,然後看了Absurd,荒唐.問題問最沒什麼可能與brilliant"正,很棒"意思相關,只有Absurd是相反意思,於是我就選對了....
读到brilliant后面几句的时候觉得好讽刺!这篇真的好难
这篇阅读太迷惑了
这篇背后的讽刺隐藏的太深了..在知道它具有讽刺意味之后回头再看才会发现这一点 第一次读很难抓住情绪
讲个笑话,GMAT不考你词汇量(狗头保命)
if unenthusiastic reviewers want their reviews being published,then they should give review kindly.所以从这句话能看出前面的这个系统没啥意义,就是一个负态度,负态度词只有两个,而stingy是mean的意思不切合题意,就选absurd
E. Correct. Among the answer choices, absurd best captures the ironic use of brilliant and preserves the meaning of the sentence as a whole.
讽刺???哪里看出来的
Absurd:荒谬的,不合理的,这道题我没法做是因为没有一个选项的答案,我是知道意思的,只能随便瞎猜
这篇阅读真的是绝了……这分我不要了还不行吗
实在没看出来哪里表达了这是在说反话?哪里在批评这个系统?
The unenthusiastic reviewers were paid promptly anyway, but they learned that if they wanted their material to be printed, it was advisable to be kind. 我感觉这句话体现了作者其实是觉得这个方法很可笑的,感觉it was advisable to be kind. 还挺有讽刺意味的......
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论