New observations about the age of some globular clusters in our Milky Way galaxy have cast doubt on a long-held theory about how the galaxy was formed. The Milky Way contains about globular clusters (compact groups of anywhere from several tens of thousands to perhaps a million stars) distributed in a roughly spherical halo around the galactic nucleus. The stars in these clusters are believed to have been born during the formation of the galaxy, and so may be considered relics of the original galactic nebula, holding vital clues to the way of the formation took place. The conventional theory of the formation of the galaxy contends that roughly 12 to 13 billion years ago the Milky Way formed over a relatively short time (about 200 million years) when a spherical cloud of gas collapsed under the pressure of its own gravity into a disc surrounded by a halo. Such a rapid formation of the galaxy would mean that all stars in the halo should be very nearly the same age. However, the astronomer Michael Bolte has found considerable variation in the ages of globular clusters. One of the clusters studied by Bolte is 2 billions years older than most other clusters in the galaxy, while another is 2 billion years younger. A colleague of Bolte contends that the cluster called Palomar 12 is 5 billion years younger than most other globular clusters. To explain the age differences among the globular clusters, astronomers are taking a second look at “renegade”theories. One such newly fashionable theory, first put forward by Richard Larson in the early 1970’s, argues that the halo of the Milky Way formed over a period of a billion or more years as hundreds of small gas clouds drifted about, collided, lost orbital energy, and finally collapsed into a centrally condensed elliptical system. Larson’s conception of a “lumpy and turbulent” protogalaxy is complemented by computer modeling done in the 1970’s by mathematician Alan Toomre, which suggests that closely interacting spiral galaxies could lose enough orbital energy to merge into a single galaxy. 143. The author of the passage puts the word “renegade” (line 29) in quotation marks most probably in order to (A) emphasize the lack of support for the theories in question (B) contrast the controversial quality of the theories in question with the respectable character of their formulators (C) generate skepticism about the theories in question (D) ridicule the scientists who once doubted the theories in question (E) indicate that the theories in question are no longer as unconventional as they once seemed

答案是E。用排除法后似乎也只能选这个，但仍不明白的是，这里的加了引号后的renegade是fashionable么？ 按E选项的意思应该是不再fashionable，但文中紧跟着"renegade" theories的是"newly fashionable theory", 该如何理解呢？请指教！

The best answer is E. To describe a theory as “renegade” is to suggest that it is unconventional.However, the author puts the word “renegade” in quotation marks (line 29) when using it to describe theories that, the author says, are “newly fashionable” (line 29). The use of quotation marks with this word in this way serves to indicate that the theories in question are no longer as unconventional as they once seemed. There is nothing in the passage to suggest that any of the other choices describe goal of the author.

E的意思是“不再unconventional“而非“不再fashionable”.

renegade原先的意思应该是“叛徒，异教学说”，也就是unconventional (newly fashionable)的，加了引号后表示否定，也就是说是“不再 unconventional (不再fashionable)"的，但后面又提出了 newly fashionable theory , 这样理解问题在哪里呢？

麻烦楼上的GG再解释一下～

renegade原先的意思应该是“叛徒，异教学说”，也就是unconventional 以上无异议。

(newly fashionable)的。 在此，金山词霸中，unconventional是“不寻常的，非传统的”意思，也就是有些理论被认为是要被否定的理论。之所以加引号，是因为过去是被否定，而现在则不同了。引号是对原来的unconventional进行补充注解，而不是对现在的情况进行否定。

加了引号后表示否定，也就是说是“不再 unconventional (不再fashionable)"的，但后面又提出了 newly fashionable theory , 这样理解问题在哪里呢？ 原来的unconventional的理论到现在，成为了fashionable的理论，这是引号的表达的意思。在对引号的理解上，不要把unconventional和newly fashionable混在一起。

是说直到1920，女性才能vote么？那么1960是女性可以vote，那么techniques were useless in women，这时候的women是有选举权的women，那么132题选D 是为什么？谢谢。

1960是新的流派出现时间，这时候妇女是可以投票，但新流派是在研究 history ,并不是时事评论。对于他们研究对象来说，还是处在妇女没有投票权的年代。