1月GMAT阅读机经：中世纪妇女监护权.

2017-08-11 作者： 296阅读

　　GMAT逻辑机经能够指引人们在阅读的道路上不再迷茫，这不1月GMAT阅读机经就来为你指明道路，澳际小编就在这寒冬中为大家吹来一股GMAT机经的暖风，为大家分享GMAT阅读机经，希望大家能感受到这股暖意，并把它化为能量，在GMAT考试的道路上勇往直前。

　　本月原始

　　第一段：男人保护女人是因为男人有这个义务来保护，更深层次是把女人当做私人物品加以保护(女同胞做到此文莫生气)。第二段讲了一个学者的观点，关于社会性及妇女的地位。最后一段作者对于此观点的评论(我看是负面的)。

　　考古

　　"※ 主题思路：

　　文章类型与结构：新观点驳斥旧观点

　　旧观点：女人要是没男人的guardian 也就没有某些权利;

　　新观点：驳斥旧观点，旧观点说法有问题;(局限+ 忽略法律史学家的论述)

　　※ 段落大意：

　　第一段：旧观点认为女性，嫁鸡随鸡嫁狗随狗;

　　旧观点认为中世纪的女性往往都是由男性作为她们的法律上的监护人，(像中国封建社会一样)出嫁前父亲监护，出嫁后丈夫监护。一个人的观点女人要是没男人的guardian 也就没有某些权利;

　　第二段：作者驳斥旧观点;

　　作为认为旧观点是不对的：(两点原因)

　　1)旧观点描述的是古罗马法律的部分，但是古罗马法律对欧洲中世纪的影响是很小的(negligible)(这里有个细节题)。法律15世纪后就不存在了;

　　2)没有参考法律史学家的论述，比如某某和某某的论述。而在这些法律史学家的论述里我们没有看到旧观点提出的那种系统。作者认为如果事实真如旧观点所述，则必然会在法律文件中体现出来 (rlected in documents).而法律文件中没有体现这种做法，所以作者认为旧观点D所说的那种做法至少是不成系统的。

　　第三段：作者反驳两个人的观点，加强论点;

　　很多人依然坚持原来的观点，举了两个人赞成原来观点的理由的例子，作者一一反驳;但作者自己的观点也是：guardian 不一定就是patriarchy 的体现;

　　※ 变体：

　　1)只研究了已婚妇女，没研究未婚妇女;

　　2)研究范围的问题;

　　3)他没有具体的数据，大部分是根据之前的情况推测的;

　　※ 题目：

　　1)作者观点和最后一句话的内容

　　2)女权有问最后一段作用，

　　应该是加强全文的论点，因为最后一段举了两个和一段观点一样的学着，然后分别驳斥掉说有flaw，前面还有道题说作者如何看待那俩货，当然是觉得他们flawed

　　※ 美国的两次女权运动：

　　第一次：www.aoji.cn

　　19世纪末二十世纪初，妇女要求选举权

　　第二次：www.aoji.cn

　　20世纪60年代，女权运动和民权运动(就是马丁路德金搞的那个)结合

　　30 V2更新版：中世纪妇女监护权

　　这事情是这样的。文章来源是一篇，但是以前考的所摘取的点有所不同，请戳“标紫部分疑似原文”看。

　　这一次主要针对了DN来进行出题。

　　by 春日里的午后阳光

　　【主题思路】：

　　提出旧观点(女人是由男性监护的)-〉反驳就旧观点(罗马法律，历史法律文献，自己的论述论据)-〉反驳两个例子，提出自己观点

　　对ND书中，中世纪女性监护权的评价提出自己观点

　　【生僻单词】

　　guardianship：监护人的身份;监护地位

　　underlie：为…的起因;构成…的基础

　　patriarchy：男性家长制;父权制

　　【段落大意】：

　　第一段：讲述旧观点，ND作品中涉及的中世纪妇女监护由男性负责

　　第一段写了ND的观点认为中世纪的女性往往都是由男性作为她们的法律上的监护人。

　　主要就是讲了那个Enworld什么的家伙的研究缺乏文献资料，所以不靠谱。先讲有个人在书里写中世纪(没记错的话是这个时间左右)妇女受到了man的保护，旧观点认为中世纪的女性往往都是由男性作为她们的法律上的监护人，(像中国封建社会一样)出嫁前父亲监护，出嫁后丈夫监护。一个人的观点女人要是没男人的guardian 也就没有某些权利;

　　第二段：反驳了旧观点，罗马法律影响小，文档中只用了支持其观点的资料，法律历史学家论述中也未涉及旧观点

　　然后说反对上面说protection的存在说没有系统性的文件信息什么的可以证明如果真的是普遍存在的话会有历史留下，并且有人说这个受到了另一个文化的影响所以存在但其实15世纪之前另一个文化的影响是negligible。

　　作为认为旧观点是不对的：(两点原因)

　　1) 旧观点描述的是古罗马法律的部分，但是古罗马法律对欧洲中世纪的影响是很小的(negligible)(这里有个细节题)。法律15世纪后就不存在了;

　　2) .这个documentation的资料用的都是支持他观点的XXX,XXX,XXX的著作，但是那些也很有名的XXX,XXX,XXX就被他忽略了这是不对的(有题)

　　3)没有参考法律史学家的论述，比如某某和某某的论述。而在这些法律史学家的论述里我们没有看到旧观点提出的那种系统。作者认为如果事实真如旧观点所述，则必然会在法律文件中体现出来 (rlected in documents).而法律文件中没有体现这种做法，所以作者认为旧观点D所说的那种做法至少是不成系统的。

　　第三段：作者进一步加强自己的观点，反驳了两个例子，阐明自己观点

　　作者自己说 it is highly possible 这个不存在不是反驳式而是自己推理的说被写书人忽视的证据不足也是一种证明没有的证据之类。很多人依然坚持原来的观点，举了两个人赞成原来观点的理由的例子，作者一一反驳;但作者自己的观点也是：guardian 不一定就是patriarchy 的体现;

　　※ 变体：

　　1)只研究了已婚妇女，没研究未婚妇女;

　　2)研究范围的问题;

　　3)他没有具体的数据，大部分是根据之前的情况推测的;

　　【题目】：

　　1) 作者观点和最后一句话的内容

　　2)女权有问最后一段作用，

　　3) 记得一道题目是最后一段全部高亮问的是作用

　　a) 选项是加强argument的类似的意思

　　4) 有考到哪个关于十五世纪前的情况是正确的，

　　a) 我选了十五世纪前那个罗马法对人们的影响很小的那个选项。

　　5) 考了infer 关于15世纪之前

　　a) 应该选Roma law 没啥作用吧

　　6) 主旨题选evaluating a study about

　　a) 那个这个不那么确定欢迎补充

　　※ 美国的两次女权运动：

　　第一次：www.aoji.cn

　　19世纪末二十世纪初，妇女要求选举权

　　第二次：www.aoji.cn

　　20世纪60年代，女权运动和民权运动(就是马丁路德金搞的那个)结合

　　【参考文章】：

　　标紫部分疑似原文

　　Guardianship over women in medieval Flanders: a reappraisal

　　Recent debates in premodern women&aposs history have focused on women&aposs social and legal position. The greatest contention appears to center on the particular systems or conditions that most consistently determined women&aposs social status and the scope of their activity. Judith Bennett, for example, argues that patriarchy is the dining system, while Bridget Hill maintains that economic factors are at least equally important.(1) Neither, however, questions the assumption that women&aposs status was somehow essentially inferior to that of men.(2) Female inferiority is perhaps most clearly expressed in the automatic guardianship of men over women, and not surprisingly, guardianship over women looms large in most studies of secular women.(3) When a society is deemed patriarchal, there is, in fact, a strong tendency to assume that constraints on women&aposs activities exemplify guardianship, or at least rlect an underlying tendency in that direction. It is nevertheless important to avoid any rlexive equation of patriarchy with guardianship over women.

　　This assumption may well underlie two of the principal studies of the social history of medieval Flanders, both of which are predicated on the existence of guardianship over women. In The Domestic Life of a Medieval City: Women, Children and the Family in Fourteenth-Century Ghent, David Nicholas states ""[m]ost women had legal personalities only through male guardians. The guardian&aposs consent was implied even if he was not present to speak for her. The guardian of a single woman was normally her father or failing him a brother or uncle. Her husband assumed legal responsibility for her when she married.""(4) A few pages later he reiterates that ""single adult women were normally under the guardianship of their fathers or brothers, with tutelage reverting more generally to the kindred if males of the conjugal family were dead or incompetent.""(5)

　　Nicholas&aposs work, however, is seriously flawed. In the first place, he documents only the sentence ending ""through male guardians;"" the rest of his statements lack citation.(匹配jj，缺乏documentation) He provides no bibliography, and a search through his notes reveals that he did not look very far beyond the holdings of the city archives in Ghent. Although his introduction provides an overview of the historiography on European women&aposs history in general, it is most notable for the absence of the works of Flemish scholars on this subject. While one can hardly fault him for omitting rerence to works of contemporary scholars such as that of Marianne Danneel,(6) his neglect of the work of Philippe Godding, of E. M. Meijers, and particularly of Jean Gilissen, a leading legal historian in the field, is incomprehensible.(7)

　　In the second place, his one note rers the reader not to legal texts, but instead to W. van Iterson&apossVrouwenvoogdij (""Guardianship over Women"").(8) Despite its title, however, Iterson&aposs work does not confirm Nicholas&aposs claims. For one thing, the focus of Iterson&aposs work is the northern, not the southern Low Countries.(9) Secondly, a majority of the evidence Iterson cites comes from the fifteenth, not the fourteenth century. Thirdly, Iterson&aposs stated focus is not all women, but only unmarried ones.(10) Finally, Iterson&aposs conclusions are actually contrary to those of Nicholas; he states unequivocally, in fact, that ""there are no traces of a general fixed guardianship over an unmarried woman who has attained her majority.""(11) He maintains instead that incidences of guardianship over single women in the northern Low Countries are, in fact, ad hoc in nature.(12)

　　There are reasons for Nicholas&aposs difficulty in finding adequate documentation for his claims. The conditions he outlines echo those associated primarily with Roman law,(13) but Roman law, as Philippe Godding had abundantly demonstrated, had a negligible impact on Flemish social custom bore the fifteenth century.(14) Furthermore, no item or provision in any keure (customary law of a community) directly addressed the issue of guardianship over women, and only one so much as implied a beli in womanly weakness that might, by extension, be taken to have necessitated guardianship.(15) Since guardianship over women, married or not, finds no expression in law codes, it must instead be deduced from practice.(16) Godding, the author of Le droitprivedans les Pays-Bas meridionaux du 12e au 18e siecle, readily acknowledges this state of affairs, but he, like Nicholas, assumes that some sort of a system of guardianship over women was in place; Godding does caution, to be sure, that actual practice was far from uniform.(17)

　　Guardianship is not the principal focus of either work, and neither scholar spends a great deal of time proving its existence. Although much of the rest of his analysis is predicated on guardianship over women, it is enough for Nicholas to have asserted its existence. He may have assumed, in fact, that since Flemish society was patriarchal, women must have been under some form of guardianship. Occasions when men act with women simply serve to confirm such an assumption. Godding is far more judicious, providing one or two examples that might be considered to rlect guardianship within the context of a forthright discussion of the likelihood of its existence. At least upon one occasion, however, his evidence does not bear out his conclusion. He claims, for example, that women in Lille were prohibited from judging men. The basis for this assertion is chapter 43 of the Lilloiscustumal. Chapter 43 states that men will judge men; it is easy to see how Godding arrived at the conclusion that women will not judge men. But the item also states that women will judge women. If one consistently applies the logic of Godding&aposs own argument, this means that just as women are incapable of judging men, men are incapable of judging women hardly an indication of guardianship over women.(18)

　　Our thesis, in contrast to the above, is relatively straightforward: that the lack of legal texts specifically addressing guardianship over women simply rlects the absence of any such systematic practice – that patriarchy, at least in medieval Flanders, did not necessarily imply guardianship over women. 新观点 If guardianship over women was not uniform, then any particular instances of it were probably ad hoc in nature, as Iterson suggests, and not systematic. An examination of constraints on bodily integrity, on the possession and disposal of property, on women&aposs position within the family, on employment, and on public participation reveals, in fact, that men did not act for women in any systematic fashion. It also reveals not only that men were not economically responsible for women but also that they did not have to act for them in public. The pairing of women with men in the documents was, with one exception, not a rlection of the demands of guardianship but rather an expression of the corporate body which men and women together constituted. The exception has to do with land held in feudal tenure.(19) Women participating in transactions involving fis were always represented by some man, acting as either guardian or advocate. Flanders was hardly feudal, however, and it would certainly be inappropriate to generalize the requirements pertinent to this one system of land tenure to cover all instances of female activity.

　　The focus of this study is explicitly on secular women. Since urban areas lt more records than did rural ones, the study centers primarily though not exclusively on women living in the major Flemish towns: Bruges, Douai, Ghent, Lille, and Ypres. The reason for leaving religious women out of the picture, even though the degree to which they exercised particularly local authority contributes significantly to our understanding of Flemish women&aposs historical experience as a whole, is that they lived, for the most part, under quite distinct legal and social conditions. The exception, of course, was the beguines, who were neither fish (avowed) nor fowl (secular women). To include them would make this essay far too long; moreover, a large number of studies already focus on them.(20)

　　以上就是关于GMAT机经的全部内容，考生朋友可以有选择的看看，最后需要提醒各位的是，GMAT机经虽然会对我们解题有所帮助，但是在考场中即使题目很像也要避免秒选，最后祝大家都能考出好成绩。