GRE阅读机经Passage 24
Historian E.H Carr’s thesis that all debates concerning the explanation of historical phenomena revolve around the question of the priority of causes is so familiar to historians as to constitute orthodoxy within their profession. The true historian, as Carr puts it, will feel a professional obligation to place the multiple causes of a historical event in a hierarchy by means of which the primary or ultimate cause of the event can be identified. In the Marxist mode of historical explanation (historical materialism), a universal hierarchy of causes is posited in which economic factors are always primary. In the classic, more widely accepted alternative ultimately derived from Weberian sociology, hierarchies of causes are treated as historically specific: explanatory primacy in any particular historical situation must be established by empirical investigation of that situation, not by applying a universal model of historical causation. While the need to rank historical causes in some order of importance may seem obvious to most historians, such hierarchies raise serious philosophical difficulties. If any historical event is the product of a number of factors, then each of these factors is indispensable to the occurrence of the event. But how can one cause be more indispensable than another? And if it cannot, how can there be a hierarchy of indispensable causes? It was this problem that first led Weber himself to argue for the impossibility of any general formula specifying the relative importance of causes; we cannot, for example, conclude that in every capitalist society religious change has been more significant than economic change (or vice versa) in explaining the rise of capitalism. Runciman offers a different argument leading to the same conclusion. He points out that it is possible to identify specific factors as the primary causes of a particular historical event only relative to an initial set of background conditions. For instance, if we accept English defeats after 1369 in the Hundred Years War as a given, then we may identify the high levels of taxation necessitated by these military reverses as the main cause of the Peasants Revolt of 1381. If instead we regard the financing of warfare by taxation in this period as a background condition, then we will see the English reverses themselves as the main cause of the revolt. However, neither ordinary life nor historical practice offer reliable criteria by which to distinguish causes from background conditions and thus to resolve historical debates about the relative importance of causes. And this difficulty casts doubt not only on the Marxist effort to identify a universal hierarchy of causes, but also on any attempt to identify an objective hierarchy of causes–even of the historically specific kind favored by non-Marxists.文章解析
第一自然段：
Historian E.H Carr’s thesis that all debates concerning the explanation of historical phenomena revolve around the question of the priority of causes is so familiar to historians as to constitute orthodoxy within their profession. The true historian, as Carr puts it, will feel a professional obligation to place the multiple causes of a historical event in a hierarchy by means of which the primary or ultimate cause of the event can be identified. In the Marxist mode of historical explanation (historical materialism), a universal hierarchy of causes is posited in which economic factors are always primary. In the classic, more widely accepted alternative ultimately derived from Weberian sociology, hierarchies of causes are treated as historically specific: explanatory primacy in any particular historical situation must be established by empirical investigation of that situation, not by applying a universal model of historical causation. 白话版讲解： 历史学家E.H Carr提出了一个论点（thesis），认为关于历史现象的解释，所有的争论（不同观点）都是围绕一个问题进行的，即导致历史现象的多个原因，哪个原因是最主要的原因，哪个次要一些，哪个更次要一些。历史学家们对Carr的这个论点都非常熟悉了，以至于在历史界，这个观点已经成了普遍接受的正统理论了。用Carr的话说，“真正的历史学家，会感到把导致某个历史事件的多个原因排出一个主次顺序来，是干历史学家这行的职业责任。这个顺序排好以后，应该让人能够清楚地辨认出某个历史事件的主因或根本原因是什么。”（接下来我要举一下历史学家总是喜欢给历史事件找主因次因的例子。）信奉马克思主义（历史唯物主义）的历史学家们在解释历史时，就提出了这样一个观点（posit）：对所有历史事件的发生，都有一个主因次因的顺序；在这个顺序中，经济方面的原因永远是众多原因中的主因，存在一个对所有历史事件都适用的主因次因顺序。除了历史唯物主义，还有一种从“韦伯社会学”衍生而来的“韦伯历史理论”，是一种被更多人信奉的经典理论。信奉“韦伯历史理论”的历史学家们也认为，对所有历史事件，都有一个主因次因的顺序。不同的是，他们认为经济方面的原因并不一定是主因，不存在一个对所有历史事件都普遍适用的主因次因顺序。导致某一个具体历史事件发生的众多原因，哪个是主因，哪个是次因？对这个问题，应该通过对当时的情形进行实证研究，具体情况具体分析，再确定究竟哪一个是主因，哪一个是次因。第二自然段：
While the need to rank historical causes in some order of importance may seem obvious to most historians, such hierarchies raise serious philosophical difficulties. If any historical event is the product of a number of factors, then each of these factors is indispensable to the occurrence of the event. But how can one cause be more indispensable than another? And if it cannot, how can there be a hierarchy of indispensable causes? It was this problem that first led Weber himself to argue for the impossibility of any general formula specifying the relative importance of causes; we cannot, for example, conclude that in every capitalist society religious change has been more significant than economic change (or vice versa) in explaining the rise of capitalism. 白话版讲解： 尽管在大多数历史学家看来，把多个原因按照重要性排个顺序，显然是必须要做的一件事。但是这种给原因排序的做法，本身会引出一些严重的哲学上的难题。如果我们说“某一个历史事件是好几个因素导致的”，那么对这个历史事件的发生来说，任何一个因素都是indispensable的。而indispensable这个单词是什么意思呢？是“不可缺少的，绝对必须的”（absolutely necessary），也就是说这个英语单词就不应该有比较级。那我们怎么能说导致某个历史事件发生的某一个因素比另一个因素“更”indispensable呢？你看，不能这样说吧？既然不能这样说，那根本就不可能把各个因素排出个主次来嘛。韦伯本人正是因为发现了这个“more indispensable”的说法本身自相矛盾的问题，才提出，要想对所有历史事件都提出一个普遍适用的主因次因的次序来是不可能的。（韦伯认为），比如，我们在解释（历史上多个国家和社会），资本主义为什么会兴起时，不能说在所有国家和社会，资本主义的兴起，都是宗教方面的原因比经济方面的原因更重要；也不能说，都是经济方面的原因比宗教方面的原因更重要。第三自然段第一部分：
Runciman offers a different argument leading to the same conclusion. He points out that it is possible to identify specific factors as the primary causes of a particular historical event only relative to an initial set of background conditions. For instance, if we accept English defeats after 1369 in the Hundred Years War as a given, then we may identify the high levels of taxation necessitated by these military reverses as the main cause of the Peasants Revolt of 1381. If instead we regard the financing of warfare by taxation in this period as a background condition, then we will see the English reverses themselves as the main cause of the revolt. 白话版讲解： （上一段是从“说哪个indispensable的原因比另一个indispensable的原因更dispensable”这一说法自相矛盾，来论证要想找出导致某一历史事件发生的主因和次因是不可能的。）这一段，我们介绍另一位历史学家的观点，他从另一个角度给出了不同的论证，得出了相同的结论。这位历史学家叫Runciman，他指出，只有在确定某一个历史事件是在什么样的一套初始背景条件下，才能指出具体哪些因素是导致某一历史事件发生的主要原因。下面举一个例子，说明导致历史事件的主因和初始背景条件是relative的，初始条件变了，主因就可能会变。如果我们将英国在百年战争中1369年后的许多次战败（defeats）作为一个既定的条件（背景条件），我们会将这许多次战败（reverses）必然导致的高税收确定为导致1381年农民起义的主因（战败是确定的事，是背景条件；如果只战败而不征那么高的税，就不会发生起义）；如果我们将这一时期（战争期间）为战争筹款（financing of warfare）当成是背景条件，我们就会将英国的战败本身当成是导致1381 年农民起义的主因（战争期间的筹款是确定的事，是背景条件；如果只筹款而不战败，就不会发生起义）。第三自然段第二部分：
However, neither ordinary life nor historical practice offer reliable criteria by which to distinguish causes from background conditions and thus to resolve historical debates about the relative importance of causes. And this difficulty casts doubt not only on the Marxist effort to identify a universal hierarchy of causes, but also on any attempt to identify an objective hierarchy of causes–even of the historically specific kind favored by non-Marxists. 白话版讲解： 而无论是日常生活还是历史实践中，我们都无法总结出一个可靠的判断标准，判断多种condition中哪些是导致历史事件发生的原因，哪些condition是（初始）背景条件；所以自然也就无法准确找出哪个condition是主要原因，解决关于多个原因哪个更重要的争论了。“无法分清哪些是初始背景条件，哪些是导致历史事件发生的原因”这个问题，不仅仅对信奉历史唯物主义的历史学家试图找一个普遍使用的主因次因顺序的做法提出了质疑，对不信奉历史唯物主义的历史学家（信奉“韦伯历史理论”的历史学家）喜欢采用的那种根据历史具体情况进行具体分析找出具体的主因次因顺序的做法，也提出了质疑。题目解析
1. The primary purpose of the passage is to A. compare two prominent models of historical explanation. B. undermine non-Marxist objections to the historical-materialist explanatory model of historical causation. C. analyze ways in which the question of historical causation can be illuminated by Weberian sociology. D. challenge an orthodox position concerning historical explanation. E. argue that historical analysis should rely more on empirical investigation than on philosophical reflection. 白话版讲解： 问全文修辞功能。 A“比较两种重要的解释历史的模式” 虽然介绍了两种模式，但是文章目的不是为了比较这两种模式。所以A错误。 B“削弱非马克思主义历史学家对历史唯物主义（马克思主义）历史解释模式的提出的反对观点” 文章的立场并不是赞同韦伯一方而反对马克思一方。所以B错误。 C“分析韦伯社会学能够以什么样的方式给研究历史因果问题启发” 文章不是在讲韦伯社会学能够怎样给历史学研究启发，所以C错误。 D“对一种关于历史解释的正统观点提出质疑” 选项中的an orthodox position，就是指文章第一句话中的Historian E.H Carr’s thesis that all debates concerning the explanation of historical phenomena revolve around the question of the priority of causes……。文章确实在在对这一观点提出质疑。所以D正确。 E“论证这样一个观点，即历史分析应该更依靠实证研究，而不是更依靠哲学深思” 文章不是在说实证研究比哲学深思是更好的研究方法。所以E错误。 本题答案：D 2. According to the passage, most historians share the assumption that A. The most useful current model of historical causation is the historical-materialist model. B. Explaining a historical event requires ranking its causes by importance. C. The same hierarchy of causes underlies every historical event. D. Philosophical debates have limited utility for historical practice. E. Different causes of the same historical event sometimes have the same importance. 白话版讲解： 问根据文章，大部分历史学家都有一个臆断，认为…… A“找历史因果关系时，最有用的model是历史唯物主义model” 文章没有说哪种model最有用。所以A错。 B“解释一个历史事件，就必须把导致该历史事件发生的多个原因根据重要程度排个顺序” 根据文章第一自然段，B选项正确。 C“导致每个历史事件背后的多个原因的主次顺序是相同的” 这类似于马克思主义历史学家的观点，不是大部分历史学家的观点，所以C错误。 D“哲学争论限制了历史实践的效用” 编写和研究历史的时候不要去做那么多哲学思辨，否则会限制干编写和研究历史这个事的效用。文章没有说历史学家都对哲学思辨有这样的否定态度。所以D错误。 E“导致一个历史事件发生的多个不同原因可能同等重要” 根据文章，历史学家既然认为应该给重要性排个序，那么实际上他们的assumption是原因的重要性是不同的。所以E错误。 本题答案：B 3. In the second paragraph of the passage, the author uses the concept of an indispensable cause primarily in order to question which of the following claims? A. Generalizations about the origins of capitalist societies are defensible. B. The study of history is largely independent of philosophical concerns. C. A universal model of historical causation is indefensible. D. A historical event is caused by many factors. E. A hierarchy of the causes of a historical event can be determined. 白话版讲解： 问文章第二自然段，作者使用“一个不可缺少的原因”这个概念是为了对下列哪个说法提出质疑？ A“关于多个不同的资本主义社会的起源是什么的问题，给出宽泛统一的概括解释（比如认为都主要是经济方面的原因导致的），这种做法总是站得住脚的、可以辩护的” 参见文章解析，文章对主要是针对一个“不可缺少的原因比另一个不可缺少的原因更重要、更不可缺少“这一命题内在的矛盾提出质疑。而不是为了质疑历史唯物主义历史学家的做generalizations的那种做法。 B“历史研究大致上总是独立于哲学考虑之外的” 文章没有提到。所以B错误。 C“试图给历史因果找出一个普遍适用的模式来的做法总是站不住脚的” 这意思是说文章赞同找一个universal model，显然错误。所以C错误。 D“一个历史事件总是由多个因素导致的” 文章没有提到。所以D错误。 E“总是可以把导致一个历史事件发生的多个原因分出个主次来” 文章此处使用“一个不可缺少的原因”这个概念就是为了质疑文章第一句话和第二句话提到的那种观点。所以E正确。 请注意我们在翻译五个选项时都加了“总是”，这是因为五个选项的claim都是用的一般现在时，表示规律。我们加了中文的“总是”，便于同学们理解。 本题答案：E 4. Which of the following best describes the organization of the passage? A. An assumption is identified and called into question. B. Opposing views are compared, contrasted, and shown to be compatible. C. An argument is advanced, criticized, and then revised. D. A theory is shown to be superior to its chief rival. E. Similar arguments are shown to lead to different conclusions. 白话版讲解： 这道题实际上是要求概括全文结构和脉络。 A“指出一个assumption，然后质疑这个assumption” 因为文章开头提出的“Historian E.H Carr’s thesis”是一个未经证实的观点，所以可以说它是一个assumption，文章主体部分都是在质疑这个观点，所以A选项正确。 注解： assumption n. （无证据的）假定；臆断 a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof B“先比较、对比了多种相互反对的观点，，然后证明这些观点其实是可以相容的” C“提出了一个论点，然后批评了该论点，然后又修正了该论点” D“证明一个理论比另一个和它竞争的理论要优越” E“证明几个相似的论证，得出了不同的结论” 选项B、C、D、E的说法不符合文章的结构。 本题答案：A文章作者
TD福利 & 领取方式
TD教研组为大家准备了GRE考试备考资料，清单如下，进群免费下载：
扫码下方二维码，添加马甲微信，发送暗号「 GRE干货」即可免费入群哦～
注：已经添加马甲微信的同学就不用重复添加啦~
2020申请季，备考路上TD陪你一起前行
