熱血背包客莊 ㄟ

　In recent decades, scholars of American literature have skillfully revealed authors’ simultaneous accommodation and resistance to an increasingly commercialized, capitalized environment during the early nineteenth century. Historians of the period have not, however, fully exploited literary criticism, due to the disciplinary boundaries that mark contemporary academic research. Few historians have extensive training in critical theory and its specialized languages, and the sheer volume of work in early American history and literature challenges anyone who would master either field, much less both. Moreover, historians study people across the nation, but much literary scholarship called “American” actually examines works produced in northeastern states. And historians usually study the operations of capitalism in its details, while literary critics produce a generalized picture of literary commodification.

1. The passage cites which of the following as a reason for historians’ failure to fully exploit literary criticism?

A. The amount of scholarship involved 
B. The distinctive nature of much literary criticism
C. The ahistorical quality of much literary criticism

2. As discussed in the passage, the literary scholars and the historians differ in which of the following ways?

A. The amount of scholarship that they produce
B. The nature of their geographic focus
C. The extent to which they are critical of early capitalism
D. The extent to which they are interested in interdisciplinary study
E. The extent to which they restrict their focus to a particular time period

3. The passage cites which of the following as a reason for historians’ failure to fully exploit literary criticism?

A. Historians’ overly thematic approach to literature
B. Historians’ conservative notion of what constitutes literature
C. Historians’ lack of interest in critical theory
D. The distinctive nature of much literary criticism
E. The ahistorical quality of much literary criticism

文章結構：

In recent decades, scholars of American literature have skillfully revealed authors’ simultaneous accommodation and resistance to an increasingly commercialized, capitalized environment during the early nineteenth century。這句話抓住的主幹有，scholars of American literature，accommodation and resistance然後commercialized隨便，看你要不要補充，再來就往下看第二句了，Historians of the period have not, however看到這裡請停止，因為出現轉折詞，而且也看到對比對象了，再來最後只要往下瞄看看有沒有額外的轉折詞，答案是沒有，而且還看到moreover，所以可以方心的做題了，第二句之後的每一句話，都在支持第二句的論點。

第一題：

as a reason for historians’ failure，作為原因，剛剛有喵到due to the disciplinary boundaries that mark contemporary academic research.這是第一個，因為是多選題，阿我只找到一個，所以還要再往下一句話去找到考點。Few historians have extensive training in critical theory and its specialized languages, and the sheer volume of work in early American history and literature challenges anyone who would master either field, much less both. 然後challenges anyone who would master either field這個就是講說沒人敢挑戰就等於是題幹historians’ failure to fully exploit literary criticism。因此有了很多原因了，一定會有一：文學界線（disciplinary boundaries），二：大量訓練（extensive training in critical theory），三：專業語言（specialized language），四：大量作品（sheer volume of work in early American history and literature），因此(A)必選無疑，(B)distinctive nature跟界限和專業語言一致，所以選（Ａ）（Ｂ）

第二題：

scholars and the historians differ問到不同，單就結構圖看不出啥鬼，所以只能在往文章細節去挖答案了，由於剛剛Few historians....這句話是剛剛第一題的考點，所以接著往下看到Moreover這句話，Moreover, historians study people across the nation, but much literary scholarship called “American” actually examines works produced in northeastern states.看到小but了這個就可以體現不同囉，historians，across the nation VS. scholarship northeastern states.看出地域性差異了，秒選（Ｂ）

補充：至於（Ｃ）講的是兩碼子事，雖然對應到And historians....這句話，雖然都有出現capitalism，但是並非講be critical of（對...做批判..）對資本主義做批判，一個是做“資本主義”操作的研究，這裡capitalism是修飾詞喔不是主幹。然後文學家是literary commodification這也是修飾語，真主幹是picture，所以都有講到資本類的東西但是不是直接批判資本主義，歷史學家是針對資本主義下的“操弄”，而文學家是針對文學商品的“寫照”

第三提：

考點同一，選（Ｄ）

以上個人筆記希望有幫助到大家，有誤再請指教!!