Some historians contend that con-

         ditions in the United States during the

         Second World War gave rise to a

Line  dynamic wartime alliance between

  (5)  trade unions and the African American

community, an alliance that advanced

the cause of civil rights.  They con-

clude that the postwar demise of this

vital alliance constituted a lost oppor-

 (10)  tunity for the civil rights movement that

followed the war.  Other scholars,

however, have portrayed organized

labor as defending all along the rela-

tively privileged position of White

 (15)  workers relative to African American

workers.  Clearly, these two perspec-

tives are not easily reconcilable, but

the historical reality is not reducible

to one or the other.

 (20)         Unions faced a choice between

         either maintaining the prewar status

         quo or promoting a more inclusive

approach that sought for all members

the right to participate in the internal

 (25)  affairs of unions, access to skilled

and high-paying positions within the

occupational hierarchy, and protec-

tion against management’s arbitrary

authority in the workplace.  While

 (30)  union representatives often voiced

this inclusive ideal, in practice unions

far more often favored entrenched

         interests.  The accelerating develop-

ment of the civil rights movement

 (35) following the Second World War

exacerbated the unions’ dilemma,

forcing trade unionists to confront

contradictions in their own practices.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q15:

The passage is primarily concerned with

1. providing a context within which to evaluate opposing viewpoints about a historical phenomenon

2. identifying a flawed assumption underlying one interpretation of a historical phenomenon

3. assessing the merits and weaknesses of a controversial theory about a historical phenomenon

4. discussing the historical importance of the development of a wartime alliance

5. evaluating evidence used to support a particular interpretation of a historical phenomenon

这篇阅读理解经常在gwd出现，而且这题给出的答案也不一致有的选e有的给出的是b，有点迷惑，请nn们指点一下到底哪个更为恰当

帮顶一下

其实这篇文章套路感还是很强的，答案我认为应该是E。

文章开头讲到两种对立的观点，这两种观点是基于对同一事件的不同理解。对于在战争中对立阶级行成联盟这一事件，一些学者认为能促进民主进步，而另一派学者认为恰恰是联盟之后，白人的统治地位被进一步被稳固。

然后作者跳出来说你们的看法都太幼稚，听我的。显然这一部分是文章的重点。作者说其实这种联盟很难说是促进还是阻碍了民主的发展。白人一方面希望有一堆忠诚的老黑伙伴，另一方面同盟了你就得分利益给黑人，那白人可舍不得。于是白人就陷入了两难。

这样，你能看出作者的观点了吗？至少你把握住文章结构了吧。

B选项明显错误吧，你的assumption是什么呢，没有。相信大家对逻辑攻击的文章的结构应该不陌生，这个不做赘述。

E这个答案就很好了。我们说主旨题是送分题，正确答案会符合你对文章结构的理解，而且总结精辟，能加深你对文章的理解。你个答案说评估了一个被用来解释某历史现象的事实，不难理解，事实就是二战中的黑白同盟，想象是指美国二战后的民主运动。一派学者认为二战后黑白同盟的解散让人们与民主运动擦肩而过；而另一派学者认为就是同盟使得黑白矛盾被缓和，延缓了民主运动的爆发，即该同盟能损害民主。作者就是对同盟这个事实进行了更深入的分析，把握到这个程度，已经能选出E了。如果再有一点背景知识，知道trade union是个什么东西，能加深对文章的理解。这个工会组织是蓝领白人，比黑人地位高一点，但狂受资本家压迫，于是他们就跟黑哥们同盟了。如果他们一心同盟，一起反对大资本家，那当然能促进民主；可是他们又觉得自己相对黑人还是多那么点特权，有那么点优越感，有舍不得放弃，革命意志不坚定。因此这种同盟是有两面性的，这是作者的态度。

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-10-16 16:20:57编辑过]