lent study of Black soldiers and their White officers in the

Civil War, but it uses more soldiers’ letters and diaries—

including rare material from Black soldiers—and concen-

(5) rates more intensely on Black-White relations in Black

regiments than do any of its predecessors. Glathaar’s title

expresses his thesis: loyalty, friendship, and respect among

White officers and Black soldiers were fostered by the

mutual dangers they faced in combat.

(10 ) Glarthaar accurately describes the government’s discrim-

inatory treatment of Black soldiers in pay, promotion, medi

cal care, and job assignments, appropriately emphasizing

the campaign by Black soldiers and their officers to get the

opportunity to fight. That chance remained limited through

(15) out the war by army policies that kept most Black units

serving in rear-echelon assignments and working in labor

battalions. Thus, while their combat death rate was only

one-third that of White units, their mortality rate from

disease, a major killer in his war, was twice as great.

(20) Despite these obstacles, the courage and effectiveness of

several Black units in combat won increasing respect from

initially skeptical or hostile White soldiers. As one White

officer put it, “they have fought their way into the respect

of all the army.”

(25) In trying to demonstrate the magnitude of this attitudi-

nal change, however, Glarthaar seems to exaggerate the

prewar racism of the White men who became officers in

Black regiments. “Prior to the war,” he writes of these

men, “virtually all of them held powerful racial prejudices.”

(30) While perhaps true of those officers who joined Black

units for promotion or other self-serving motives, this state-

ment misrepresents the attitudes of the many abolitionists

who became officers in Black regiments. Having spent

years fighting against the race prejudice endemic in Ameri-

(35) can society; they participated eagerly in this military

experiment, which they hoped would help African Americans

achieve freedom and postwar civil equality. By current

standards of racial egalitarianism, these men’s paternalism

toward African Americans was racist. But to call their

(40) feelings “powerful racial prejudices” is to indulge in

generational chauvinism—to judge past eras by present standards.

attributed to Glarthaar in lines 25-28?

(A) Insisting on an unwarranted distinction between two

groups of individuals in order to render an argument

concerning them internally consistent

(B) Supporting an argument in favor of a given interpretation

of a situation with evidence that is not particularly

relevant to the situation

(C) Presenting a distorted view of the motives of certain

individuals in order to provide grounds for a negative

evaluation of their actions

(D) Describing the conditions prevailing before a given

event in such a way that the contrast with those

prevailing after the event appears more striking than it

actually is

(E) Asserting that a given event is caused by another event

merely because the other event occurred before the given

event occurred

174. Which of the following actions can best be described as indulging in “generational chauvinism” (lines 40-41) as

that practice is defined in the passage?

(A) Condemning a present-day monarch merely because many monarchs have been tyrannical in the past.

(B) Clinging to the formal standards of politeness common in one’s youth to such a degree that any relaxation of

those standards is intolerable

(C) Questioning the accuracy of a report written by an employee merely because of the employee’s gender.

(D) Deriding the superstitions accepted as “science” in past eras without acknowledging the prevalence of

irrational beliefs today.

(E) Labeling a nineteenth-century politician as “corrupt” for engaging in once-acceptable practices considered

intolerable today.

173与174都是类比题吧，有什么区别吗？感觉有但我又说不出来。请教大家。

我认为，173是对原文内容的特性提炼或归纳，而174是同类特性的类比。

从OG的解释中，可以体会到这两道题目的区别。一个是提炼特性，一个是特性类比。