The professionalization of the study of history in the second half of the nineteenth century, including history's transformation from a literary genre to a scientific discipline, had important consequences not only for historians' perceptions of women but also for women as historians. The disappearance of women as objects of historical studies during this period has elements of irony to it. On the one hand, in writing about women, earlier historians had relied not on firsthand sources but rather on secondary sources; the shift to more rigorous research methods required that secondary sources be disregarded. On the other hand, the development of archival research and the critical editing of collections of documents began to reveal significant new historical evidence concerning women, yet this evidence was perceived as substantially irrelevant: historians saw political history as the general framework for historical writing. Because women were seen as belonging to the private rather than to the public sphere, the discovery of documents about them, or by them, did not, by itself, produce history acknowledging the contributions of women. In addition, genres such as biography and memoir, those forms of "particular history" that women had traditionally authored, fell into disrepute. The dividing line between "particular history" and general history was redefined in stronger terms, widening the gulf between amateur and professional practices of historical research.
According to the passage, the development of archival research and the critical editing of collections of documents had which of the following effects?
Historians increasingly acknowledged women's contributions to history.
Historians began to debate whether secondary sources could provide reliable information.
Historians began to apply less rigorous scientific research criteria to the study of women's history.
More evidence concerning women became available to historical researchers.
Women began to study history as professional historians.
题目分析:
题目释义:
细节题目
考点:
支持主题(Supporting ideas)
旨在考察我们对文章细节的认知
这个题目是纯细节题,定位在出现关键词的地方“On the other hand, the development of archival research and the critical editing of collections of documents began to reveal significant new historical evidence concerning women, yet this evidence was perceived as substantially irrelevant”
选项分析:
A选项:历史学家更多的承认了女性对历史的贡献。从原文我们只能知道,是证据更多了,而和是否承认女性的贡献无关。
B选项:历史学家开始争论次要的来源是否能提供可靠的消息。在文中有关键词句“the shift to more rigorous research methods required that secondary sources be disregarded”。但是这显然与这道问题无关。
C选项: 历史学家开始对女性的历史制定不严格的标准。文中定位在“Because women were seen as belonging to the private rather than to the public sphere, the discovery of documents about them, or by them, did not, by itself, produce history acknowledging the contributions of women.”通过这句话的“did not acknowledge”,我们可以认为是更严格了。
D选项:Correct。更多的关于女性历史的证据向历史研究者呈现了出来。考点中的定位句中“reveal significant new historical evidence”是这个选项正确的最好证明。
E选项:女性开始像职业的历史学家一样研究历史。这个选项的关键词出现在原文第一句末尾,但是和档案搜索的发展没有关系。
曾经document没有让h知道女性的贡献 != 现在discover of document 让H知道了女性的贡献
reveal new evident = more evidence available. 不管之前那个evident是不是已经发现 但被认为无关
不管是不是irrelevant!!!不能太过纠结
还是得看懂文章才行
这个题充分说明 不要把所有否定词当作否定论点的重要性
the development of archival research and the critical editing of collections of documents began to reveal significant new historical evidence concerning women
笔记:D项中的evidence是泛指,并不强调一手或是二手、主观或者客观,而文章中也只是evidence,都是对应的,所以做题的时候一定不要自己发散
yet this evidence was perceived as substantially irrelevant这个句子不应该是反驳了d吗?
yet主要是说这玩意为啥没被用,然后后面用冒号解释了一下
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论