GRE閱讀｜ A long-held view of the history of the English colonies that became the United States has been that England‘s policy toward these colonies before 1763 @ 熱血背包客莊ㄟ

A long-held view of the history of the English colonies that became the United States has been that England‘s policy toward these colonies before 1763 was dictated by commercial interests and that a change to a more imperial policy, dominated by expansionist militarist objectives, generated the tensions that ultimately led to the American Revolution. In a recent study, Stephen Saunders Webb has presented a formidable challenge to this view. According to Webb, England already had a military imperial policy for more than a century before the American Revolution. He sees Charles II, the English monarch between 1660 and 1685, as the proper successor of the Tudor monarchs of the sixteenth century and of Oliver Cromwell, all of whom were bent on extending centralized executive power over England‘s possessions through the use of what Webb calls “garrison government.” Garrison government allowed the colonists a legislative assembly but real authority, in Webb‘s view, belonged to the colonial governor, who was appointed by the king and supported by the “garrison,” that is, by the local contingent of English troops under the colonial governor‘s command.

According to Webb, the purpose of garrison government was to provide military support for a royal policy designed to limit the power of the upper classes in the American colonies. Webb argues that the colonial legislative assemblies represented the interests not of the common people but of the colonial upper classes, a coalition of merchants and nobility who favored self-rule and sought to elevate legislative authority at the expense of the executive. It was, according to Webb, the colonial governors who favored the small farmer, opposed the plantation system, and tried through taxation to break up large holdings of land. Backed by the military presence of the garrison, these governors tried to prevent the gentry and merchants, allied in the colonial assemblies, from transforming colonial America into a capitalistic oligarchy.

Webb‘s study illuminates the political alignments that existed in the colonies in the century prior to the American Revolution, but his view of the crown‘s use of the military as an instrument of colonial policy is not entirely convincing. England during the seventeenth century was not noted for its military achievements. Cromwell did mount England‘s most ambitious overseas military expedition in more than a century, but it proved to be an utter failure. Under Charles II, the English army was too small to be a major instrument of government. Not until the war France in 1697 did William III persuade Parliament to create a professional standing army, and Parliaments price for doing so was to keep the army under tight legislative control. While it may be true that the crown attempted to curtail the power of the colonial upper classes, it is hard to imagine how the English army during the seventeenth century could have provided significant military support for such a policy.

1. The passage can best be described as a

(A) survey of the inadequacies of a conventional viewpoint

(B) reconciliation of opposing points of view

(D) defense of a new thesis from anticipated objections

(E) review of the subtle distinctions between apparently similar views

2. The passage suggests that the long-standing view referred to in the first paragraph argued that

(A) the colonial governors were sympathetic to the demands of the common people

(B) Charles II was a pivotal figure in the shift of English monarchs toward a more imperial policy in their governorship of the American colonies.

(C) the American Revolution was generated largely out of a conflict between the colonial upper classes and an alliance of merchants and small farmers

(D) the military did not play a major role as an instrument of colonial policy until 1763

(E) the colonial legislative assemblies in the colonies had little influence over the colonial governors

3. According to the passage, Webb views Charles II as the “proper successor” (in the first paragraph) of the Tudor monarchs and Cromwell because Charles II

(A) used colonial tax revenues to fund overseas military expeditions

(B) used the military to extend executive power over the English colonies

(D) resisted the English Parliament‘s efforts to exert control over the military

(E) allowed the American colonists to use legislative assemblies as a forum for resolving grievances against the crown

For the following question, consider each of the choices separately and select all that apply

4. According to Webb‘s view of colonial history, which of the following was (were) true of the merchants and nobility mentioned in the second paragraph?

(A) They were opposed to policies formulated by Charles II that would have transformed the colonies into capitalistic oligarchies.

(B) They were opposed to attempts by the English crown to limit the power of the legislative assemblies.

結構分析：

先預告一下，這篇是屬於轉啊～轉阿～七彩紅燈，讓我看到美麗的人生，文章的邏輯會一下『正』，一下『負』，但是結構很清楚，很有GRE的文章模式的FU，而我覺得最適合描述GRE的文章到底怎麼表達的，我會說他就是一個檔案存放的概念，就是：我的電腦→ Ｄ：槽 → ＸＸ資料夾 → ＱＱ資料夾 → ＯＯ檔.exe

A long-held view of the history of the English colonies that became the United States has been that England‘s policy toward these colonies before 1763 was dictated by commercial interests and that a change to a more imperial policy, dominated by expansionist militarist objectives, generated the tensions that ultimately led to the American Revolution. In a recent study, Stephen Saunders Webb has presented a formidable challenge to this view. According to Webb, England already had a military imperial policy for more than a century before the American Revolution. He sees Charles II, the English monarch between 1660 and 1685, as the proper successor of the Tudor monarchs of the sixteenth century and of Oliver Cromwell, all of whom were bent on extending centralized executive power over England‘s possessions through the use of what Webb calls “garrison government.” Garrison government allowed the colonists a legislative assembly but real authority, in Webb‘s view, belonged to the colonial governor, who was appointed by the king and supported by the “garrison,” that is, by the local contingent of English troops under the colonial governor‘s command.

如果在考試的話，這裡只需看第一句跟第二句就夠了，因為一直看到某人webb，所以這些都會被封裝起來作為一組套件去服務主題，然而webb套件的主軸在第二句：In a recent study, Stephen Saunders Webb has presented a formidable challenge to this view.往下的東西都沒轉折詞，那當然是在做補充說明為何反對。然再看看this view.這就是代名詞代替A long-held view所以馬上就知道文章就是要看那個view怎麼打架，管你是海景第一排 VS. 山景最後排怎樣的，但這兩句，在還沒看文章之前，已經知道等等一定是講怎麼去反駁那個view，然後誰贏誰輸，不知道。確定的是主角兩個view，一個老的，一個偉伯（recent）的，然後兩者關係是互斥。然後再來抓最重要的東西，就是那個view，總是要看一下才比較知道在哪論啥。剛剛已經先把第二句解決了，得到結果就是Webb ＝ (一)A long-held view

那這個view的內容怎麼找，就是看到of後面，其實這句話已經在做所剛剛開頭所提的資料存放建檔方式了，我再細拆，

ㄅ：A long-held view

ㄆ：the history

ㄇ：the English colonies

ㄈ：that became the United States（殖民地變成美國比較合理，地名對地名，所以此關代是修飾ㄇ句的）

這個主詞就跟麻吉弟弟饒舌一樣『倒著唸』，啊現在變麻吉哥哥了，變成美國的英國殖民地的歷史的長期持有的觀點，這就像是打開資料夾“美國” → 搜尋“英國殖民時期” 資料夾 → 點擊“長期持有的觀點”檔案，然後如果結合第二句話，就可以知道在“英國殖民時期” 資料夾還有一組資料是“偉伯觀點”檔。然後這樣細分之後繼續看這裡個檔案的程式碼，

A long-held view ：他有兩組喔，因為有並列結構，帶出兩件事情that+名詞子句。

第一：that England‘s policy toward these colonies before 1763 was dictated by commercial interests

第二：that a change to a more imperial policy, dominated by expansionist militarist objectives, generated the tensions that ultimately led to the American Revolution.

總之就是一個＄，然後另一個是軍事power↑，本以為看到插入句不看，但是這裡出現了強調字眼dominated，所以我才特別注意的。相反的從此可以得知偉伯理論必然是跟＄＄無關，或是軍事力沒有改變，兩者取一或是兩這皆是，就看是部分否定還是絕對否定，到此，因為有兩個因素，我怕他是要討論哪一個我抓不住，所以再往下看一句，

According to Webb, England already had a military imperial policy for more than a century before the American Revolution.偉伯觀點表示到軍事力本來就有了，所以確定文章主要在爭論『軍事』這塊，往下就第二段

基本上這個看到第一句就可以放下屠刀，拿起滑鼠點擊右鍵按下一頁了，因為開頭就說偉伯觀點，後面再接一個『目的』，目的就是解釋之前出現的東西，所以這個訊號子是標準的補充說明用的，然後整段喵過去都是webb又沒有轉折詞，所以必然支持上一段，偉伯講得對，講得好，講得呱呱叫，跳下一段，跳跳跳乎你爽，跳乎你勇。

看到這裡我期盼已久的轉折詞總算是來了，前方看到illuminates表示支持偉伯的，但是但是（BUT）出現，使得前面的東西邏輯取反，即表示偉伯觀點『不被支持』，but his view of the crown‘s use of the military as an instrument of colonial policy is not entirely convincing.可惜的事情是這句話沒有繼續延伸，他只講到瑋伯是錯，往下看，England during the seventeenth century was not noted for its military achievements.反駁軍事力量的部分，然後往下再看應該沒必要了，因為第一段的第三句已經把爭論重點放在軍事了，其他的訊息都屬細節有考在看，如果真的龜毛不放心，就可以挑最後一句來驗算。

While it may be true that the crown attempted to curtail the power of the colonial upper classes, it is hard to imagine how the English army during the seventeenth century could have provided significant military support for such a policy. 所以還是只討論軍事沒有那麼厲害。hard to imagine military support 把文章做封裝回文，回到起始論點A long-held view

1. The passage can best be described as a

(A) survey of the inadequacies of a conventional viewpoint

(B) reconciliation of opposing points of view

(D) defense of a new thesis from anticipated objections

(E) review of the subtle distinctions between apparently similar views

解題：

本文極大段落都是在講webb論點，所以表示主角就是webb論點（In a recent study）（Ａ）不行，因為最後的軍事力量的部分被打槍回來了，所以還是有試用傳統觀點。其中關鍵性重點在於evaluation這個字當中，他在argument當中的定義就是判別結論的好跟壞，我們首先從第一段開頭：得到old view怎樣怎樣的，然後又接一個webb觀點打槍，這樣照理說我們會被影導到選擇（Ａ），不過看到這句：

but his view of the crown‘s use of the military as an instrument of colonial policy is not entirely convincing.他對於webb理論的負評價，就是evaluation.選（Ｃ）

2. The passage suggests that the long-standing view referred to in the first paragraph argued that

(A) the colonial governors were sympathetic to the demands of the common people

(B) Charles II was a pivotal figure in the shift of English monarchs toward a more imperial policy in their governorship of the American colonies.

(C) the American Revolution was generated largely out of a conflict between the colonial upper classes and an alliance of merchants and small farmers

(D) the military did not play a major role as an instrument of colonial policy until 1763

(E) the colonial legislative assemblies in the colonies had little influence over the colonial governors

解題：

題目是推理題，所以要找到關鍵字，long-standing view 他對應到原文的，

A long-held view of the history of the English colonies that became the United States has been that England‘s policy toward these colonies before 1763 was dictated by commercial interests and that a change to a more imperial policy, dominated by expansionist militarist objectives, generated the tensions that ultimately led to the American Revolution.

從這裡當中我們要開始對他做對象尋找，因為推理題的兩特性，一：會有兩屬性相同的東西做內容上的對比，二：對原文該段主軸做對應呼應，但是法二被排出了，因為定位句就在第一句話，他就是主題了，沒辦法，只有法醫可用要找對比對象出來，總要有個比較對象，快速掃瞄這句話發像沒有，所以往下一句找，哈哈被我找到In a recent study，所以這一題在搞時間對比，原來那個A long-held view 只是坐標系的原點，所以原本期待答案會在In a recent study這句裡，不過這裡只有表達邏輯詞，就是前後兩時期觀點是『相反的』，但沒有給內容理由，因此找到下一句According to Webb, England already had a military imperial policy for more than a century before the American Revolution.接著，對於這個內容取反就是long-standing view的內容了，對選項找沒有military policy ，選（Ｄ）

補充：不過話說這個其實結構圖已經很明顯知道答案了，所以我還是強力推薦作題前要先抓文章架構。

3. According to the passage, Webb views Charles II as the “proper successor” (in the first paragraph) of the Tudor monarchs and Cromwell because Charles II

(A) used colonial tax revenues to fund overseas military expeditions

(B) used the military to extend executive power over the English colonies

(D) resisted the English Parliament‘s efforts to exert control over the military

(E) allowed the American colonists to use legislative assemblies as a forum for resolving grievances against the crown

解題：

開頭給了一組細節題的訊號字，結尾又來個because，這解題方式就被『固定』在找文章同意替換，因為細節題啊，不具推理延伸性，只能針對文章提到進行同意改寫，所以快速喵到：

He sees Charles II, the English monarch between 1660 and 1685, as the proper successor of the Tudor monarchs of the sixteenth century and of Oliver Cromwell, all of whom were bent on extending centralized executive power over England‘s possessions through the use of what Webb calls “garrison government.”

power就是答案了，唯獨（Ｂ）有，但其實也可以看結構圖解題拉～就是Charles II,這的內容是在webb理論的部分，然後將他當修辭目的題的論據來看，既然是論據，那當然就是支持觀點了，所以就是支持webb觀點，那webb觀點講的就是military power，也是秒殺，選（Ｂ）

For the following question, consider each of the choices separately and select all that apply

4. According to Webb‘s view of colonial history, which of the following was (were) true of the merchants and nobility mentioned in the second paragraph?

(A) They were opposed to policies formulated by Charles II that would have transformed the colonies into capitalistic oligarchies.

(B) They were opposed to attempts by the English crown to limit the power of the legislative assemblies.

解題：

（Ａ）transformed the colonies into capitalistic oligarchies.很明顯相反了。

（Ｂ）這裡角色一定是上流社會VS.皇家，皇家用“garrison government.”對付白鳥麗次那類的超級有錢人，a royal policy designed to limit the power of the upper classes in the American colonies.

（Ｃ）對應點在這裡It was, according to Webb, the colonial governors who favored the small farmer, opposed the plantation system, and tried through taxation to break up large holdings of land.對象錯誤了。選（Ｂ）

如果看得懂的話，以下要來說明為何說本文是一個結構很整齊的文章。

首先這段已A long-held view ，Webb，當作最大標題，寫作方式先以早期的觀點內容做兩個補充，其一是商業利益，其二是皇權至上，這就是A long-held view 下的兩個資料夾，但是作者沒打開，直接跳上一頁開Webb資料夾了，所以目光就轉到偉伯資料夾，這當中already had a military資料夾打開後進入到舉例的層面，舉出CH II等三人（檔案），然後這三人都是同屬性，這屬性是garrsion government. exe. 然後garrsion這檔案是colonial governor的程式碼，第一段的階梯標示就結束了。

然後第二段的層次由garrison開始，它的作用是limit屬於另一種屬性，好了這樣已經完成，然後進入剛剛colonial governor的程式碼，他有三個語言套件，分別是一：favored the small farmer，二：tried through taxation，三：prevent capitalistic oligarchy

最後第三段在補上結論，所以平行於偉伯觀點，因為第三段是打槍偉伯的，同樣地位等級才能相互評論，所以資料夾的層次是跟Webb資料夾同一層，我們命名為conclusion，然後他的資料夾是not entirely convincing（hard to imagine military support ）資料夾裡檔案是not noted for its military，往下的屬性是兩個，一是Cromwell，二是Not until William 以證據當作not entirely convincing的內容物，結束這回合。

A long-held view of the history of the English colonies that became the United States has been that England‘s policy toward these colonies before 1763 was dictated by commercial interests and that a change to a more imperial policy, dominated by expansionist militarist objectives, generated the tensions that ultimately led to the American Revolution. In a recent study, Stephen Saunders Webb has presented a formidable challenge to this view. According to Webb, England already had a military imperial policy for more than a century before the American Revolution. He sees Charles II, the English monarch between 1660 and 1685, as the proper successor of the Tudor monarchs of the sixteenth century and of Oliver Cromwell, all of whom were bent on extending centralized executive power over England‘s possessions through the use of what Webb calls “garrison government.” Garrison government allowed the colonists a legislative assembly but real authority, in Webb‘s view, belonged to the colonial governor, who was appointed by the king and supported by the “garrison,” that is, by the local contingent of English troops under the colonial governor‘s command.