Historian:  In the Drindian Empire, censuses were conducted annually to determine the population of each village.  Village census records for the last half of the 1600’s are remarkably complete.  This very completeness makes one point stand out; in five different years, villages overwhelmingly reported significant population declines.  Tellingly, each of those five years immediately followed an increase in a certain Drindian tax.  This tax, which was assessed on villages, was computed by the central government using the annual census figures.  Obviously, whenever the tax went up, villages had an especially powerful economic incentive to minimize the number of people they recorded; and concealing the size of a village’s population from government census takers would have been easy.  Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the reported declines did not happen.

In the historian’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

1. The first supplies a context for the historian’s argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against the position the historian seeks to establish.
2. The first presents evidence to support the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against that position.
3. The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second is that position.
4. The first is a position for which the historian argues; the second is an assumption that serves as the basis of that argument.

我想不明白为什么选择C,谁能再帮我解释一下这段话的意思呢,我怎么也半懂不懂呢

1. The first is an assumption that the historian explicitly makes in arguing for a certain position; the second acknowledges a consideration that calls that assumption into question.

文章是说village的人口普查纪录很完整。这些完整的纪录显示了1600’s的后五年统计的人口数明显减少。

后引出税收与人口的关系。税收是政府根据人口普查的结果来定的。

因此，税收高的时候，每个village就会因为经济原因把统计的人口最小化，以此来减少赋税。

最后，提出观点：人口普查报告中所谓的人口减少实际并未发生。

很容易排除ABD

文章是看得懂，但是那些选项为何要那么拗口来～

1. The first supplies a context for the historian’s argument; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against the position the historian seeks to establish. 排除
2. The first presents evidence to support the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue against that position. 排除
3. The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish; the second is that position.
4. The first is a position for which the historian argues; the second is an assumption that serves as the basis of that argument.排除

thank you very much,l see now