扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / OG2016-RC-77
Two works published in 1984 demonstrate contrasting approaches to writing the history of United States women. Buel and Buel's biography of Mary Fish (1736–1818) makes little effort to place her story in the context of recent historiography on women. Lebsock, meanwhile, attempts not only to write the history of women in one southern community, but also to redirect two decades of historiographical debate as to whether women gained or lost status in the nineteenth century as compared with the eighteenth century. Although both books offer the reader the opportunity to assess this controversy regarding women's status, only Lebsock's deals with it directly. She examines several different aspects of women's status, helping to refine and resolve the issues. She concludes that while women gained autonomy in some areas, especially in the private sphere, they lost it in many aspects of the economic sphere. More importantly, she shows that the debate itself depends on frame of reference: in many respects, women lost power in relation to men, for example, as certain jobs (delivering babies, supervising schools) were taken over by men. Yet women also gained power in comparison with their previous status, owning a higher proportion of real estate, for example. In contrast, Buel and Buel's biography provides ample raw material for questioning the myth, fostered by some historians, of a colonial golden age in the eighteenth century but does not give the reader much guidance in analyzing the controversy over women's status.
The passage suggests that Buel and Buel's biography of Mary Fish provides evidence for which of the following views of women's history?
Women have lost power in relation to men since the colonial era.
Women of the colonial era were not as likely to be concerned with their status as were women in the nineteenth century.
The colonial era was not as favorable for women as some historians have believed.
Women had more economic autonomy in the colonial era than in the nineteenth century.
Women's occupations were generally more respected in the colonial era than in the nineteenth century.
题目分析：
文章推断题：B的work提供了哪方面的证据？
选项分析：
A选项：殖民时代，女性相比男性丢失了更多权利：原文没提到B研究了这个方面。
B选项：殖民时代的女性没有19世纪的女性关心她们的地位：原文没提。
C选项：正确。殖民时代没有历史学家想的那样受女性欢迎：原文说B的作品提供了大量的质疑“殖民黄金时代”这个谬论的原始资料。
D选项：殖民时代的女性比19世纪的女性有更多的经济自主权：原文没提到B研究了这方面。
E选项：殖民时代的女性职位比19世纪的女性职位更受尊重：：原文没提。
请问大家如何判定Golden这个词是指对女性地位来说“golden”的呢？原文里我认为没有直接或者间接的证据提出这个黄金时代是对女性地位而言的把？
myth指的是后面some historian 持有的认为十八世纪是colonial golden age
而Buel and Buel’s biography provides losts of material questioning了这个观点。（黄金时期当然指的是女性地位的黄金时期,colonial大概指的是18世纪的美国还是殖民地）
赞分析；谢啦
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
定位词： In contrast
Buel的作品是质疑历史学家的myth（18世纪对女性来说是个非常好的时期）
要用SC的分析逻辑来理解最后这个句子：the myth of a colonial golden age，也就是作者反对的是myth这个东西，myth的内容是colonial golden age，也就是历史学家所支持的
之前以为golden是指殖民的黄金时期
其实这个myth of只能有两个解释：1. 要么就是属于什么时期的，这样golden修饰的就是colonial（这就是选B的原因）；2. 要么就是内容，这样的话golden其实就不是修饰colonial，因为这跟句子意思和原文意思都不符合
但是你不能question一个whether...的问题，question只能是一个statement，或者question这个问题的必要性，所以你要单说question，其实就只能说question这个myth的内容，这样就一定是第二个golden
这样想有点复杂，需要时间，这样就需要缩短定位时间了
In contrast, Buel and Buel's biography provides ample raw material for questioning the myth, fostered by some historians, 【of】 a colonial golden age in the eighteenth century but does not give the reader much guidance in analyzing the controversy over women's status. 阅读的过程中注意到了这个of，但太急没有留意这个of指代的其实是myth就快速过了，以至于其实并没有读懂最后一句话的意思，做错了这道题。
rc
长难句“provides ample大量丰富的 raw material for questioning the myth（, fostered by some historians, ）of a colonial golden age in the eighteenth century” 一个关于colonial 黄金时期（golden age）的myth，这个myth被很多历史学家所支持培育（foster）
Buel and Buel's biography provides ample raw material for questioning the myth, fostered by some historians, of a colonial golden age in the eighteenth century
Buel提供了大量的原始资料为了质疑18世纪的黄金时代的神话
找不到哪里说18世纪对女性好，无法定位
Myth is an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution. By mentioning myth in the passage, the writer wants to emphasize the idea of some historians may not be right. B&B's book provided evidence.
Buel and Buel's biography provides ample raw material for questioning the myth, fostered by some historians, of a colonial golden age in the eighteenth century