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 is an assumption made by the book review editor referred to in line 27?
A book of great worth will receive only good reviews.
An important book will endure despite possible bad reviews.
Reviewers might hide their true opinions in order to have their reviews published.
Book review editors should select reviewers whose opinions can be guessed in advance.
Book review editors have an obligation to print extensive reviews of apparently important books.
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。这是因为,文中提到了书评编辑以前使用的一个精明的系统来决定哪些书要发表文章。如果评论者的态度不热情,书评编辑就会认为这本书不够重要而不发表评论,然而,他们还是支付了评论者,这说明有些评论者可能会隐藏自己真实的意见以便文章能够发表。
这题就是典型的阅读中的逻辑题。要注意题目中的assumption和文章中的if
文章说 如果书评不好,编辑就认为书不好
那assumption就是:如果书好,那么书评就好(逆否命题)
这个题选A需要对enthusiastic有正确的理解,enthusiastic不仅仅是表示情绪的强度,它也代表了一种积极的情感,英文的释义:feeling or showing a lot of excitement and interest about sb/sth
所以A选项的good完全可以是enthusiastic的同义替换
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.→有一个差评,就可能雪藏→假设:好的作品怎么会有差评呢!
The book review editor sent out a greater number of books than reviews he actually 。。。这里才是27
取反,这里是说unenthusiastic reviewers 准确的反映了book review的价值,那么A book of great worth will receive only good reviews.
不过我又感觉还是A好 A作为作为editors的观点(如果让好书收到负评价就觉得自己失职)的assumption是很好的 但是C更像是一个这个观点的推论 观点本身与C选项无关 C不是一个BASIS
我觉得C不涉及到line 27的编辑,如果这是假设,那编辑就无所谓好差评了,只要跟reviewer表明需要publish,就只会是他想要的。
why not E。文中说如果差评,编辑会觉得这个书不重要,后面就不出版,那不是说明他觉得自己只出版重要的书的评价吗
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
感觉A和C都可以 有没有朋友帮忙解释一下C呢 写书评的人如果对编辑认为的好书持负面评价 那为了可以刊登出来,他的确可能得隐藏真实想法 而且C也是说的might并不是绝对的语气
这个题是不是可以当假设题来做。。。。
给C选项取反的话就是她们不会隐藏真实的想法,那么editors还是能预测,没有削弱
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
感觉D 更合理一点
完全无法理解