Traditionally, the study of history has had fixed boundaries and focal points — periods, countries, dramatic events, and great leaders. It also has had clear and firm notions of scholarly procedure: how one inquires into a historical problem, how one presents and documents one‘s findings, what constitutes admissible and adequate proof. The recent popular psychohistory, committed to Freudian psychoanalysis, takes a radically different approach. This commitment precludes a commitment to history as historians have always understood it. Psychohistory derives its "facts" not from history, the detailed records of events and their consequences, but from psychoanalysis of the individuals who made history, and deduces its theories not from this or that instance in their lives, but from a view of human nature that transcends history. It denies the basic criterion of historical evidence: that evidence be publicly accessible to, and therefore assessable by, all historians. Psychohistorians, convinced of the absolute rightness of their own theories, are also convinced that theirs is the "deepest" explanation of any event that other explanations fall short of the truth.
1. Which of the following best states the main point of the passage?
(A) The approach of psychohistorians to historical study is currently in vogue even though it lacks the rigor and verifiability of traditional historical method.
(B) Traditional historians can benefit from studying the techniques and findings of psychohistorians.
(C) Areas of sociological study such as childhood and work are of little interest to traditional historians.
(D) The psychological assessment of an individual‘s behavior and attitudes is more informative than the details of his or her daily life.
(E) History is composed of unique and nonrepeating events that must be individually analyzed on the basis of publicly verifiable evidence.
2. The author of the passage puts the word "deepest" in quotation marks most probably in order to
(A) question the usefulness of psychohistorians‘ insights into traditional historical scholarship
(B) draw attention to a contradiction in the psychohistorians‘ method
(C) emphasize the major difference between the traditional historians‘ method and that of psychohistorians
(D) disassociate her opinion of the psychohistorians‘ claims from her opinion of their method
(E) signal her reservations about the accuracy of psychohistorians‘ claims for their work
結構分析：
Traditionally, the study of history has had fixed boundaries and focal points — periods, countries, dramatic events, and great leaders.
首先看到句首的Traditionally，這個其實隱含者時間對比的訊號，因為她開頭在傳統上來說後面給出一段敘述是在講一份研究，而我文章一開始還沒講到觀點就開始給例子，表示這一份研究不是作者自己的意思，他當作開頭，表示用他人之口來反駁舊有觀點，來借刀殺人，因此等等必然形成對比行結構的文章，劇透一下，第三句話的The recent說明了對比性，好了預想想完之後，我們來抓主題句重點吧，歷史研究，已經定好界線跟重點了，然後怎樣的界線跟重點用同位於破折號給出補充，既然是補充，當然就是舉例非主幹了，所以跳過。
It also has had clear and firm notions of scholarly procedure: how one inquires into a historical problem, how one presents and documents one‘s findings, what constitutes admissible and adequate proof.
這句話給出一個並列結構also在邏輯上是順承的，一樣再說傳統觀點的內容，而這句話可以不用看，因為除了also的關鍵字之後，開頭的IT=the study of history，並沒有用原來的名詞再寫一次，表示作者對於它的重要性沒有第一句高，因此咱們跳過，趕快來看對比的東西吧。
The recent popular psychohistory, committed to Freudian psychoanalysis, takes a radically different approach.
中間的插入句也是同位語結構, committed to Freudian psychoanalysis, 反正就當作是一種心理歷史的分支即可，就是一種ＰＨ，他怎麼了，different approach. 有不同觀點，哇靠腰作者賣關子，只有講出反駁傳統，就是反駁fixed boundaries and focal points 可是，沒有給出那既然反駁不贊成傳統觀點，那我的新觀點是啥，只能再看一句話了，不過其實下面有沒有看其實無所謂，在主幹上必然是『反』fixed boundaries and focal points
This commitment precludes a commitment to history as historians have always understood it.
這句話是打槍傳統，precludes取反，反對歷史學家，所以還是沒有進一步的說明到底PH所持的立場是啥，快速跳過，這句話真的白看。
Psychohistory derives its "facts" not from history, the detailed records of events and their consequences, but from psychoanalysis of the individuals who made history, and deduces its theories not from this or that instance in their lives, but from a view of human nature that transcends history.
來了，中間來了not A but B的結構，不是Ａ而是Ｂ，那我們看Ｂ的部分就好了，更改：
Psychohistory derives its "facts" but from psychoanalysis of the individuals who made history, and deduces its theories but from a view of human nature that transcends history.
因此對於ＰＨ來說他們的 facts定義是psychoanalysis of the individuals，view of human nature
It denies the basic criterion of historical evidence: that evidence be publicly accessible to, and therefore assessable by, all historians.
這裡看到分號前半部即可，因為訊號字evidence，然後他只是說上面說的東西是跟historical相反，再次補充而已，跳過。
Psychohistorians, convinced of the absolute rightness of their own theories, are also convinced that theirs is the "deepest" explanation of any event that other explanations fall short of the truth.
, convinced of the absolute rightness of their own theories, 差入句別看，中間看到also表示並列結構，他是用主詞Psychohistorians去做並列的，所以他和之前的psychoanalysis of the individuals，view of human nature綁在一起，但是因為開頭主詞不是用帶名詞，表示他地位跟原本一樣高，所以也是重點一枚，總結ＰＨ有三特徵，自媒體，人性，還有深入報導其他媒體沒有的東西。
我們再來總結一下，我其實看了
Traditionally, the study of history has had fixed boundaries and focal points — periods, countries, dramatic events, and great leaders. It also has had clear and firm notions of scholarly procedure: how one inquires into a historical problem, how one presents and documents one‘s findings, what constitutes admissible and adequate proof. The recent popular psychohistory, committed to Freudian psychoanalysis, takes a radically different approach. This commitment precludes a commitment to history as historians have always understood it. Psychohistory derives its "facts" not from history, the detailed records of events and their consequences, but from psychoanalysis of the individuals who made history, and deduces its theories not from this or that instance in their lives, but from a view of human nature that transcends history. It denies the basic criterion of historical evidence: that evidence be publicly accessible to, and therefore assessable by, all historians. Psychohistorians, convinced of the absolute rightness of their own theories, are also convinced that theirs is the "deepest" explanation of any event that other explanations fall short of the truth.
然後得到的新文章是以下，短文章看到五句感覺有點多，不管反正有抓到主幹就好
Traditionally, the study of history has had fixed boundaries and focal points.
The recent popular psychohistory takes a radically different approach.
This commitment precludes a commitment to history as historians have always understood it.
Psychohistory derives its "facts" from psychoanalysis of the individuals who made history, and deduces its theories from a view of human nature that transcends history.
Psychohistorians are also convinced that theirs is the "deepest" explanation of any event that other explanations fall short of the truth.
1. Which of the following best states the main point of the passage?
(A) The approach of psychohistorians to historical study is currently in vogue even though it lacks the rigor and verifiability of traditional historical method.
(B) Traditional historians can benefit from studying the techniques and findings of psychohistorians.
(C) Areas of sociological study such as childhood and work are of little interest to traditional historians.
(D) The psychological assessment of an individual‘s behavior and attitudes is more informative than the details of his or her daily life.
(E) History is composed of unique and nonrepeating events that must be individually analyzed on the basis of publicly verifiable evidence.
解題：
the rigor and verifiability of traditional historical method＝fixed boundaries and focal points，選（Ａ）
補充：
問到主旨，那就是結構圖的內容去對應就好了，本文章就是新觀點打敗舊有思維，所以要有一個反傳統的字眼，或是支持現在的字眼，再來他們倆立場對立，因此（Ｂ）benefit（Ｅ）沒有把PH反駁Ｈ的概念帶入，兩個先幹掉，（Ｃ）沒ＰＨ啊這出題老師是找不到其他選項可以改了嗎，（Ｄ）這是陷阱假設一直看到not A but Ｂ感覺確實是在比來比去，好沒關係，就假設有比來比去好了，那我們要看的是跟誰比，選項上是details of his or her daily life這個的內容對應為boundaries and focal points感覺對不出來，不過後面的補充可以利用periods, countries, dramatic events, and great leaders. 所以比錯了，文章是說特別的東西喔，不是流水帳，但其實不應該有more informative than的邏輯存在，因為這都是細節面的東西在比來比去。
2. The author of the passage puts the word "deepest" in quotation marks most probably in order to
(A) question the usefulness of psychohistorians‘ insights into traditional historical scholarship
(B) draw attention to a contradiction in the psychohistorians‘ method
(C) emphasize the major difference between the traditional historians‘ method and that of psychohistorians
(D) disassociate her opinion of the psychohistorians‘ claims from her opinion of their method
(E) signal her reservations about the accuracy of psychohistorians‘ claims for their work
解題：
修辭目的題，deepest要幹媽用的，他是定位在文章層次當中的反對理由裏頭，所以是在ＰＨ那一遍的立場當中的舉例跟解釋，所以他的目的就是支持ＰＨ的說法是對的，（Ｅ）瞬間就秒殺了，選（Ｅ）
補充：
像（Ａ）question（Ｂ）contradiction（Ｄ）disassociate絕對不行，（Ｃ）emphasize the major difference 這是次要主旨，因為有比來比去的就是那兩組 not A but B的結構，但是必須說的是這兩個結構都是修飾語喔，以下：
Psychohistory derives its "facts" （which is）not from history（前面的主詞動詞受詞都完整了，所以後面這是在修飾前面的facts不是啥東東，所以可以試想中間省略了關係代名詞，那這樣是修飾詞結構，根本不是主幹），
往下the detailed records of events and their consequences,（這是差入語修飾history用的，更不是主幹了），
but from psychoanalysis of the individuals who made history, 同樣道理找到前方的主要子句合起來，就可以知道他是在修飾"facts" 。
最後，and deduces its theories not from this or that instance in their lives, but from a view of human nature that transcends history.這裡也是，not A but B，的Ａ跟Ｂ是在修飾theories。
以上筆記供大夥參考若有錯誤再煩請指教
留言列表
托福TOEFL ibt (4)
{{ article.title }}
