|
For over 300 years, one of the most enduring beliefs among historians of England has been that the character of English society has been shaped by the unique openness of its ruling elite to entry by self-made entrepreneurs (especially newly wealthy merchants) able to buy their way into the ranks of elite society. This upward mobility (upward mobility: 上进心, 向上倾向), historians have argued, allowed England to escape the clash between those with social/political power and those with economic power, a conflict that beset the rest of Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Upward mobility was also used to explain England’s exceptional stability since the late seventeenth century (no revolutions, for example), as well as such major events as the development of the most efficient agricultural system in Europe, the making of the first industrial revolution, and the onset of severe economic decline.
But is the thesis true? Recent work on the supposed consequences of an open elite has already produced some doubts. Little credence, for example, is now accorded the idea that England’s late nineteenth-century economic decline resulted from absentee business owners too distracted by the demands of elite life to manage their firms properly. But, although the importance of an open elite to other major events has been severely questioned, it is only with a new work by Lawrence and Jeanne Stone that the openness itself has been confronted. Eschewing the tack (An approach, especially one of a series of changing approaches. 方法，方针一种方法，尤指一系列变化方法中的一种;a course or method of action; especially: one sharply divergent from that previously followed) of tracing the careers of successful entrepreneurs to gauge the openness of the elite, the Stones chose the alternative approach of analyzing the elite itself, and proceeded via the ingenious route of investigating country-house ownership.
Arguing that ownership of a country house was seen as essential for membership in the ruling elite, the Stones analyze the nature of country-house ownership in three counties for the period 1540-1880. Their critical findings are provocative: there was strikingly little change in the ownership of such houses throughout the period. Instead, even in the face of a demographic crisis (fewer marriages, declining fertility, rising infant mortality), the old elite was able to maintain itself, and its estates, intact for centuries through recourse to various marriage and inheritance strategies. The popular picture of venerable elite families overcome by debt and selling out to merchants is simply not borne out (bear out: v.证实) by the Stones’ findings. Rather, the opportunities for entrepreneurs to buy their way into the elite, the Stones show, were extremely limited. If further studies of country-house ownership attest to (attest t v.证实, 证明) the representativeness and accuracy of their data, then the Stones’ conclusion that the open elite thesis cannot be maintained may, indeed, prove true.
3. Traditional historians of England, as they are described in the passage, would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements regarding open elites?
(A) They develop more easily in agricultural rather than industrial societies.
(B) They develop in response to particular sets of economic conditions.
(C) They tend to unite some of the powerful groups in a society.
(D) They tend to reduce class distinctions based on income in a society.（B）
(E) They tend to insure adequate distribution of material goods in a society.
最近问题有点多，ＮＮ们别烦我啊
我根据allowed England to escape the clash between those with social/political power and those with economic power,选了Ｃ，但答案是Ｂ，从哪里可以看出来啊？？ | 
