本篇长文章难度中等。
In his recent book, Louis Gerteis argues that nineteenth-century Northern reformers in the United States attacked slavery in the South by invoking the values of a utilitarian political economy: proper public policy requires government to endorse anything that gives all people the opportunity to maximize their individual pleasure and their material gain. Social good, according to this thinking, is achieved when individuals are free to pursue their self-interests. Gerteis argues that, since slavery in the South precluded individual autonomy and the free pursuit of material gain, major Northern reformers opposed it as early as the 1830s.
In making this argument, Gerteis offers the most persuasive formulation to date of the Growth of a Dissenting Minority interpretation, which argues that a slow but steady evolution of a broad-based Northern antislavery coalition culminated in the presidential victory of the antislavery Lincoln in 1860. This interpretive framework, which once dominated antislavery historiography, had been discounted by historians for two basic reasons. First, it tended to homogenize the political diversity of Northern reformers; Northern reformers differed significantly among themselves and belonged to diverse political parties. Second, it seemed incompatible with emerging scholarship on the slaveholding South, which held that Northern abolitionists of the 1830s did not succeed in mobilizing Northern public opinion and paving the way for Lincoln in 1860. Instead, Southern slaveholders misconstrued abolitionist views of the 1830s as main- stream rather than marginal Northern public opinion, and castigated Northerners generally for opposing slavery. In this view, it was the castigation by Southerners that gradually caused widespread antislavery feeling throughout the North.
Gerteis revives the Growth interpretation by asserting that, rather than Southern attitudes, the unified commitment of Northern reformers to utilitarian values served to galvanize popular political support for abolitionism. However, unlike earlier proponents of the Growth interpretation, Gerteis does not reduce the Northern reformers to a homogeneous group or try to argue that the reformers shared views undermined their differing party loyalties. Members of the two major political parties still attacked each other for ideological differences. Nevertheless, Gerteis argues, these disparate party affiliations did not diminish the actuality of reformer unity, most prominent in the 1830s. At this time, Northern reformers, such as William Lloyd Garrison and Samuel Chase, portrayed the framers of the United States Constitution as proponents of individual autonomy and capitalist values. This vision of the founders served as a basis for asserting that freedom was a national moral imperative, and that the United Sates Constitution was an antislavery document. Gerteis differs from traditional adherents of the Growth framework by asserting that the basic elements in the antislavery coalition were firmly in place and accepted by all elements in the Northern reform community as early as the late 1830s.
1. The passage is primarily concerned with
A. criticizing adherents of a traditional view for overlooking important data
B. reconciling two different explanations for the same phenomenon
C. describing a reformulation of a traditional interpretation
D. advocating a traditional approach to a controversial subject
E. suggesting that a new interpretation is based on faulty assumptions
答案：C
2. The author would be most likely to agree with which of the following about Gerteis formulation of the Growth interpretation?
A. It is too similar to the traditional version of the Growth interpretation.
B. It is of dubious validity and does not expand research on the antislavery movement.
C. It is strongly supported by recent research on the nineteenth-century South.
D. It is more convincing than the traditional version of the Growth interpretation.
E. It is seminal work that will be highly influential on future research.
答案：D
3. The passage supports which of the following statements about the Growth interpretation?
A. It had been dismissed by earlier historians but has recently come to dominate antislavery historiography.
B. It has recently received support from emerging scholarship on the nineteenth-century South.
C. It was once very influential in antislavery historiography and has recently been reformulated.
D. It has always been highly controversial and is still widely debated by historians.
E. It has recently been discounted by emerging scholarship on utilitarian values in the nineteenth-century South.
答案：C
4. Which of the following, if true, would provide the LEAST support for Gerteis arguments as they are discussed in the passage?
A. In the 1870s, following the abolition of slavery, many Northerners remained unified in their desire to see an effective free-labor system implemented in the South.
B. As early as the 1830s, Northern abolitionists and Northern reformers with a commitment to utilitarian values began to agree that the United States Constitution was an important antislavery document.
C. Many Northern reformers who disagreed about political policies argued that abolishing slavery should be a central goal of the United States government.
D. As early as 1836, many Northern reformers argued that slavery destroyed individuals ability to pursue their self-interests and thwarted the free pursuit of material gain.
E. Owing to their different party allegiances, Northern reformers who shared utilitarian values did not join together in important collective actions against slavery.
答案：E
解析见下。
【第一段】In his recent book, Louis Gerteis argues that nineteenth-century Northern reformers in the United States attacked slavery in the South by invoking the values of a utilitarian political economy: proper public policy requires government to endorse anything that gives all people the opportunity to maximize their individual pleasure and their material gain.
第1句：在他最近的书中，L. Gerteis辩护说19世纪美国北部的改革者们通过援引一种功利主义的政治经济学的价值观来攻击南部的奴隶制：适当的公共政策要求政府支持任何能够给予所有人最大化他们个人的快乐以及物质收获的机会的事物。
句子内容多了一点，名词短语比较长，仔细读，仔细划分句子结构，能读懂的。
大意：北部改革者反对南部的奴隶制；他们拿出了一种反对的理由——功利主义的政治经济学的价值观；该价值观认为，好的公共政策要能够让每个人都能【最大化他们个人的快乐以及物质收获】。
Social good, according to this thinking, is achieved when individuals are free to pursue their self-interests.
第2句：按照这种思想，社会的善是在个人能够自由地追求自身利益时实现的。
承接上文。上文说，功利主义的政治经济学的价值观认为，好的公共政策要能够让每个人都能【最大化他们个人的快乐以及物质收获】。为什么呢？因为社会是由人构成的，如果每个人都能获得最大化的快乐以及物质收获，这样全社会所有人就能得到最多的快乐以及物质收获——这就是最大化的社会的善。
Gerteis argues that, since slavery in the South precluded individual autonomy and the free pursuit of material gain, major Northern reformers opposed it as early as the 1830s.
第3句：Gerteis认为，由于南方的奴隶制排除了（使无法实现）个人自治和自由追求物质利益，北方的主要改革者早在1830年代就反对它了。
南部实行奴隶制，由自由白人和黑人奴隶构成，奴隶当然无法自由地追求自身利益，只有白人才能追求，所以南部的社会当然无法达到最大化的社会的善，违反了功利主义的政治经济学的价值观。因此，Gerteis认为，因为南部违反了功利主义的政治经济学的价值观，所以北方的主要改革者早在1830年代就反对它了——换句话说，Gerteis认为，北方的主要改革者早在1830年代的立场就是符合功利主义的政治经济学的价值观的，并且早在1830年代就依据这种价值观来反对奴隶制。
【第二段】In making this argument, Gerteis offers the most persuasive formulation to date of the Growth of a Dissenting Minority interpretation, which argues that a slow but steady evolution of a broad-based Northern antislavery coalition culminated in the presidential victory of the antislavery Lincoln in 1860.
第1句：在提出这个论点时，Gerteis提供了对少数反对派的增长的解释的一个迄今为止最有说服力的构想，该构想认为一个广泛的北方反蓄奴联盟缓慢而稳定的演变在1860年反奴隶制林肯总统的胜利中达到高潮。
顺承上文，如果G认为北方的反蓄奴者是主动认可功利主义的政治经济学的价值观，并且早在1830年代就依据这种价值观来反对奴隶制的，那么G就需要解释北方反蓄奴观念是如何发展起来的，反蓄奴者是如何壮大的——反蓄奴者即使在北方，一开始也是北方人里的少数派。G需要解释这些少数派是如何壮大的。这句话就是G提出的解释。G认为，存在一个【广泛的北方反蓄奴联盟】，这个联盟是慢慢发展，不断壮大，最终他们力量大到选出了反对蓄奴的林肯上台成为总统。这标志着【广泛的北方反蓄奴联盟】成为主流，其力量达到最高点。
This interpretive framework, which once dominated antislavery historiography, had been discounted by historians for two basic reasons.
第2句：这个曾经主导反奴隶制史学的诠释框架，由于两个基本的原因而被历史学家打了折扣。
G的这个解释曾经是最主流的解释，曾经【主导反奴隶制史学的诠释框架】，也就是大家都一度相信这个解释。但是，后来，这个解释因为两个缺陷而被质疑。
First, it tended to homogenize the political diversity of Northern reformers; Northern reformers differed significantly among themselves and belonged to diverse political parties.
第3句：首先，它倾向于使北方改革派的政治多样性同质化；北方的改革者彼此显著不同，属于多种不同的政党。
G不是提出存在一个【广泛的北方反蓄奴联盟】吗？别人反对G的理由就是，存在一个【广泛的北方反蓄奴联盟】就意味着支持废奴的北方人形成了同一个政治团体，共享同一种政治认同。但事实并不如此——【北方的（废奴）改革者彼此显著不同，属于多种不同的政党】。所以G犯的错误就是：把多样的、复杂的人群看成一样的（同质的）了。
Second, it seemed incompatible with emerging scholarship on the slaveholding South, which held that Northern abolitionists of the 1830s did not succeed in mobilizing Northern public opinion and paving the way for Lincoln in 1860.
第4句：其次，它似乎与蓄奴制南方的新兴学派不相容，后者认为，1830年代的北方废奴主义者在1860年没有成功地动员北方的大众舆论，为林肯铺平道路。
前文写了，G认为，1830年代的北方废奴主义者形成团体，不懈努力，势力逐渐加强，直到1860达到顶峰，选出了废奴总统：林肯。但是，蓄奴制南方的新兴学派提出了不同看法。他们认为，1830年代的北方废奴主义者并没有这么大势力，并没有影响到公众的看法以至于让公众选择了废奴总统——林肯。
Instead, Southern slaveholders misconstrued abolitionist views of the 1830s as main- stream rather than marginal Northern public opinion, and castigated Northerners generally for opposing slavery.
第5句：相反，南方的奴隶主误解了废奴主义的观点十九世纪三十年代是北方舆论的主流而非边缘，并普遍地严厉斥责北方人反对奴隶制。
这里仍然在介绍上一句话中【蓄奴制南方的新兴学派】的看法。如果他们认为，不是【北方废奴主义者】的努力让北方的大众接受了废奴的观念从而【主动】选出了林肯——不是主动的，那就是被动的咯。那么林肯到底怎么上台的，北方大众是怎么赶鸭子上架，【被动】反对奴隶制的？
他们提出的解释是，这是南方人自己作出来的。南方的奴隶主误以为，废奴主义已经成为了北方的主流观点——误以为北方人普遍都反对南方的蓄奴制，所以逆反心理上来了，南方的奴隶主就开始【严厉批判】北方人不让他们搞奴隶制。
In this view, it was the castigation by Southerners that gradually caused widespread antislavery feeling throughout the North.
第6句：在这个观点中，是南方人的谴责在整个北方逐渐引起广泛的反对情绪。
所以，这个观点认为，并不是北方人主动普遍反对蓄奴制——刚开始除了一小部分人以外，北方大众其实不是很关心这个问题。是因为南方人误以为北方人攻击他们，所以南方人开始疯狂攻击北方人，把北方人惹毛了，北方人才普遍反对南方蓄奴制了。
到这里，G的观点受到了挺大的冲击——看起来，似乎都要站不住脚啦？
真的吗？文章百转千回，接下来画风又变了。
【第三段】Gerteis revives the Growth interpretation by asserting that, rather than Southern attitudes, the unified commitment of Northern reformers to utilitarian values served to galvanize popular political support for abolitionism.
第1句：通过强调说，是北方改革者对功利主义价值观的一致承诺，而不是南方的态度，激发了废奴主义的普遍的政治支持，Gerteis复兴了增长说这一解释。
最开始，G认为北方人是主动产生了对废奴主义的普遍支持；接下来，南方的学者反对G，他们认为是南方的态度激发了北方人产生对废奴主义的普遍支持；G又回来了，认为南方的学者不对，仍然是北方人主动产生了对废奴主义的普遍支持。这种支持来自【北方改革者对功利主义价值观的一致承诺】，也就是因为奴隶制不符合功利主义价值观，而北方人相信功利主义价值观，所以支持废奴主义。这和最开始G的观点是一致的。G的观点复兴了。
However, unlike earlier proponents of the Growth interpretation, Gerteis does not reduce the Northern reformers to a homogeneous group or try to argue that the reformers shared views undermined their differing party loyalties.
第2句：然而，与早些时候提出的增长说这一解释的支持者不同的是，Gerteis并没有将北方的改革者降格为一个统一的团体，或者试图说改革者认同的观点破坏了他们不同的党派忠诚。
但是G最开始的观点是有缺陷的，现在复兴的G需要填补这些缺陷。这句话就是在填补缺陷1——在第二段第3句——【首先，它倾向于使北方改革派的政治多样性同质化；北方的改革者彼此显著不同，属于多种不同的政党。】
这里G就开始打补丁：赞成废奴并不意味着一定来自同一党派，来自不同党派的北方人都赞同废奴，他们都赞同废奴这件事没有影响到他们党派的分歧。
Members of the two major political parties still attacked each other for ideological differences.
第3句：两大政党的成员还是因为意识形态上的分歧而互相攻击。
继续打补丁，引入现实证据：两大政党的成员还是因为意识形态上的分歧而互相攻击，就说明【他们都赞同废奴这件事没有影响到他们党派的分歧】嘛。
Nevertheless, Gerteis argues, these disparate party affiliations did not diminish the actuality of reformer unity, most prominent in the 1830s.
第4句：不过，Gerteis认为，这些不同的党派依从并没有削弱改革者团结的现实，这一点在1830年代最为突出。
还是G在打补丁——在别的方面还是继续吵，还是搞党争，但是涉及到废奴，北方人还是很团结的。
At this time, Northern reformers, such as William Lloyd Garrison and Samuel Chase, portrayed the framers of the United States Constitution as proponents of individual autonomy and capitalist values.
第5句：此时，北方的改革者，如威廉·劳埃德·加里森（William Lloyd Garrison）和塞缪尔·蔡斯（Samuel Chase），把美国宪法的制定者描绘成个人自主和资本主义价值的支持者。
这里就是G针对第二个缺陷打补丁了。第二个缺陷在第二段第4句——【第4句：其次，它似乎与蓄奴制南方的新兴学派不相容，后者认为，1830年代的北方废奴主义者在1860年没有成功地动员北方的大众舆论，为林肯铺平道路。】也就是，反对G的蓄奴制南方的新兴学派认为，1830年代的北方废奴主义者并没有这么大势力，并没有影响到公众的看法以至于让公众选择了废奴总统——林肯。
G这里就是要试图证明，北方大众真的是普遍主动支持废奴的，并不是赶鸭子上架被南方逼的，也不是小圈子自嗨。
怎么说明北方大众真的普遍主动支持废奴呢？ G的解释是，北方的废奴者对此作了贡献。这些人指出，在某种北方人普遍接受的精神中已经包含了废奴精神。通过这样的方式让北方大众接受了废奴精神。
这个【北方人普遍接受的精神】就是美国宪法。北方的废奴者们说，宪法制定者们是支持个人自主和资本主义价值的。
This vision of the founders served as a basis for asserting that freedom was a national moral imperative, and that the United Sates Constitution was an antislavery document.
第6句：对（宪法）创始人的这种看法成为了断言自由是国家道德义务，以及美国宪法是一个反奴隶制文件的基础。
北方的废奴者们把宪法制定者们描绘成支持个人自主和资本主义价值的，而宪法制定者们肯定不会制造出和自己价值观矛盾的宪法，所以美国宪法的精神肯定是反奴隶制的，宪法的精神肯定是支持自由的。如果宪法的精神支持自由，那么追求自由，保卫自由，就成为了美国（人）的道德义务。
只要对宪法制定者的这种看法能被北方大众接受，那么后面的废奴精神被北方大众接受就是顺理成章的事情了。
G的这两个补丁打得怎么样？没毛病。
传统的增长框架，也就是G早期的观点，是被揪出了两个漏洞。但是，后来G填补了这两个漏洞，让自己的观点更可信了。现在的【增长框架】是更完善、更可信的观点了，作者揪不出毛病。
Gerteis differs from traditional adherents of the Growth framework by asserting that the basic elements in the antislavery coalition were firmly in place and accepted by all elements in the Northern reform community as early as the late 1830s.
第7句：Gerteis与传统的增长框架的支持者不同，他声称，反奴隶制联盟的基本要素早在1830年代晚期就已经牢牢地落实到北方改革社区的所有组成部分之中。
G的改良版增长框架不但没了原先的毛病，还能够更进一步。老一版的G的观点认为，反奴隶制联盟（及其持有的废奴观点）是从1830开始起步，到1860林肯上台才说明已经被社会普遍接受。这里G干脆认为，既然自己打了第二个补丁——废奴是宪法支持的精神——所以现实可能比之前的保守估计更激进一点。G认为，早在1830年代晚期，北方改革派社区就应该已经普遍接受反奴隶制联盟（及其持有的废奴观点）了。
1. The passage is primarily concerned with
本文主要关注的是
总结本文：G搞出老观点，风光一阵后被各种质疑；G又杀回来了，修改老观点，打补丁解决了质疑，还更进了一步。G的大胜利！所以选C。
C. describing a reformulation of a traditional interpretation
描述了对传统解释的重新表述
G的传统解释、G的重新表述。
看错误选项。
A. criticizing adherents of a traditional view for overlooking important data
因忽视重要数据而批评传统观点的追随者
哪有重要数据？本文重点也不是批评传统观点的追随者，而是讲G的华丽转身。
B. reconciling two different explanations for the same phenomenon
协调对同一现象的两个不同的解释
协调啥？协调就说明，作者认为两边都有正确的成分也都有错误的成分。但这篇文章里只有G笑到了最后，G的反对者被G驳倒了。
D. advocating a traditional approach to a controversial subject
向一个有争议的主题提倡传统方法
没提倡传统方法，提倡的是改良版的。
E. suggesting that a new interpretation is based on faulty assumptions
表明建议新的解释是基于错误的假设
新的解释——G的改良版。可是啥时候说它是基于错误假设了？
2. The author would be most likely to agree with which of the following about Gerteis formulation of the Growth interpretation?
作者最有可能同意以下哪一项关于Gerteis对增长论的构想？
作者觉得G的改良版比老版的强。所以选D。
D. It is more convincing than the traditional version of the Growth interpretation.
它比传统版本的增长解释更有说服力。
看错误选项。
A. It is too similar to the traditional version of the Growth interpretation.
这与增长论的传统版本太相似了。
明明不像。不但打了补丁，还进了一步。
B. It is of dubious validity and does not expand research on the antislavery movement.
它的可信度是可疑的，并没有扩大对反奴隶制运动的研究。
作者对G的改良版不是怀疑态度。
C. It is strongly supported by recent research on the nineteenth-century South.
它受到了最近对十九世纪南方的研究的大力支持。
要受支持也是G的反对者受到了南方研究的支持，不是G……
E. It is seminal work that will be highly influential on future research.
它是开创性的工作，将对未来的研究产生极大的影响
啥时候说它是“开创性的”，“将对未来的研究产生极大的影响”了？
3. The passage supports which of the following statements about the Growth interpretation?
这篇文章支持以下哪个关于增长论的陈述？
C. It was once very influential in antislavery historiography and has recently been reformulated.
曾经在反奴隶制史学方面有很大的影响力，最近又被重新阐述。
选C，没毛病吧？
看错误选项。
A. It had been dismissed by earlier historians but has recently come to dominate antislavery historiography.
早期的历史学家已经摒弃了它，但是最近却主宰了反奴隶制史学。
干扰项。错在两处。第一，老观点之前是被质疑，原文had been discounted by historians，不是被抛弃had been dismissed，没那么严重。第二，最近只是复兴了，没说压倒了其他一切观点，主宰dominate整个领域了呀。
B. It has recently received support from emerging scholarship on the nineteenth-century South.
最近得到了研究十九世纪南方的新兴学者的支持。
胡扯，明明是过去曾被这些人反对。最近这些人啥态度，文章没说。
D. It has always been highly controversial and is still widely debated by historians.
一直以来争议很大，历史学家们还在广泛争论。
没有“一直以来”争议很大。刚出来的时候曾被大家普遍相信过。
E. It has recently been discounted by emerging scholarship on utilitarian values in the nineteenth-century South.
它最近被研究19世纪的南方的功利主义价值观的新兴学者所贬斥。
这就一定要注意英文时态了。原文用的had been discounted by historians，过去完成时，也就说明了是过去被贬斥过，不是最近。最近这些人啥态度，文章没说。
多说一句：因为我们母语中文不讲时态，所以我们容易轻视时态，觉得没用。并不如此。一定要注意时态，时态能传达很多信息。这一题就给了我们教训。文中用过去完成时，传达的意思就是这是过去的事情。题目问最近如何——has recently been——现在完成时，问的是现在。那就不知道了，文章没说。
4. Which of the following, if true, would provide the LEAST support for Gerteis arguments as they are discussed in the passage?
如果为真的话，下列哪一项可以为Gerteis在文中的论证提供最少的支持？
说人话，也就是哪一项可以削弱G的论证。也就是说，要和G的观点矛盾。选E。
E. Owing to their different party allegiances, Northern reformers who shared utilitarian values did not join together in important collective actions against slavery.
由于他们不同的党派忠诚，共享功利价值观的北方改革派并不参与反对奴隶制的重要集体行动。
G认为，“是北方改革者对功利主义价值观的一致承诺，而不是南方的态度，激发了废奴主义的普遍的政治支持”。也就是G认为北方人虽然有这样那样的党派分歧，但是面对废奴这个议题还是很团结一致的。因此，要削弱G，就要说北方人并没有团结在一起反对奴隶制。
【由于他们不同的党派忠诚，共享功利价值观的北方改革派并不参与反对奴隶制的重要集体行动。】——这符合南方学者们的看法，形成了对G观点的削弱。
看错误选项。
A. In the 1870s, following the abolition of slavery, many Northerners remained unified in their desire to see an effective free-labor system implemented in the South.
在十九世纪七十年代，在奴隶制的废除之后，许多北方人都保持着共同的愿望：希望看到在南方实行有效的自由劳动制度。
这不就说明北方人都反对奴隶制么，和G的观点不矛盾。
B. As early as the 1830s, Northern abolitionists and Northern reformers with a commitment to utilitarian values began to agree that the United States Constitution was an important antislavery document.
早在19世纪30年代，北欧废奴主义者和认同功利主义价值的北方改革者开始认同美国宪法是一个重要的反奴隶制文件。
这不就是G的意思，他在第二个反驳里提出来的？
C. Many Northern reformers who disagreed about political policies argued that abolishing slavery should be a central goal of the United States government.
许多在政治政策上观点分歧的北方改革者认为，废除奴隶制应该是美国政府的中心目标。
这就是G的意思，他在第一个反驳里提出来的。G认为北方人虽然有这样那样的党派分歧，但是面对废奴这个议题还是很团结一致的。
D. As early as 1836, many Northern reformers argued that slavery destroyed individuals ability to pursue their self-interests and thwarted the free pursuit of material gain.
早在1836年，许多北方改革派就认为，奴隶制破坏了个人追求自身利益的能力，挫败了对物质利益的自由追求。
这就是G最开始的意思。
重申一下：注意时态。时态能传达很多信息。
閱讀更多 教英語的狗狗老師 的文章
