国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA

标题: 请教PREP 1-29 [打印本页]

作者: 罗杰Liu 时间: 2009-1-22 19:01 标题: 请教PREP 1-29

In a new book about the antiparty feeling of the early political leaders of the United States, Ralph Ketcham argues that the first six Presidents differed decisively from later Presidents because the first six held values inherited from the classical humanist tradition of eighteenth-century England. In this view, government was designed not to satisfy the private desires of the people but to make them better citizens; this tradition stressed the disinterested devotion of political leaders to the public good. Justice, wisdom, and courage were more important qualities in a leader than the ability to organize voters and win elections. Indeed, leaders were supposed to be called to office rather than to run for office. And if they took up the burdens of public office with a sense of duty, leaders also believed that such offices were naturally their due because of their social preeminence or their contributions to the country. Given this classical conception of leadership, it is not surprising that the first six Presidents condemned political parties. Parties were partial by definition, self-interested, and therefore serving something other than the transcendent public good.
Even during the first presidency (Washington's), however, the classical conception of virtuous leadership was being undermined by commercial forces that had been gathering since at least the beginning of the eighteenth century. Commerce--its profit-making, its self-interestedness, its individualism--became the enemy of these classical ideals. Although Ketcham does not picture the struggle in quite this way, he does rightly see Jackson's tenure (the seventh presidency) as the culmination of the acceptance of party, commerce, and individualism. For the Jacksonians, nonpartisanship lost its relevance, and under the direction of Van Buren, party gained a new legitimacy. The classical ideals of the first six Presidents became identified with a privileged aristocracy, an aristocracy that had to be overcome in order to allow competition between opposing political interests. Ketcham is so strongly committed to justifying the classical ideals, however, that he underestimates the advantages of their decline. For example, the classical conception of leadership was incompatible with our modern notion of the freedoms of speech and press, freedoms intimately associated with the legitimacy of opposing political parties

The passage is primarily concerned with

(A) describing and comparing two theories about the early history of the United States
(B) describing and analyzing an argument about the early history of the United States
(C) discussing new evidence that qualifies a theory about the early history of the United States
(D) refuting a theory about political leadership in the United States
(E) resolving an ambiguity in an argument about political leadership in the United States

答案是B，可是我不太能够理解，感觉作者文中有反对RK观点的意思，可是B中没有表达这个意思呀。
我选了D，是不是错的很夸张呀，当时读的时候觉的文章就是在讲leadership呀，现在读了读，觉得其实不仅仅是leadership，不知道这样说对不对

请教

作者: moodraie 时间: 2009-1-26 13:27

我講一下我的想法
我記得以前老師說過，如果一篇文章中，作者有說明一個論點的好壞。則在主

旨題中大多會選analyzing.

關於這篇
第一段在說明 Ketcham的論點
第二段則在評論該論的的優缺點

所以D選項， refute不是主要整篇的結構。只有出現再第二段的部分。

如有錯誤，麻煩請指正。
謝謝

作者: 罗杰Liu 时间: 2009-1-26 19:18

恩豁然了开朗了

谢谢

作者: jiangmingjia 时间: 2009-2-11 03:58

谢了，此前百思不得其解，原来有这样的规律！

欢迎光临国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)