题目信息
The final quarter of the nineteenth century marked
a turning point in the history of biology—biologists
became less interested in applying an ideal of
historical explanation deductively to organic function and more interested in discerning the causes of vital
processes through experimental manipulation. But it
is impossible to discuss the history of biology in the
nineteenth century without emphasizing that those
areas of biology most in the public eye had depended
on historical explanation. Wherever it was applied,
historical explanation was deemed causal explanation.
The biologist-as-historian and the general historian of
human events dealt with comparable phenomena and
assumed necessarily a common mode of explanation.
Nineteenth-century biologists found a historical
explanation of organic function attractive partly
because their observation of the formation of a
new cell from a preexisting cell seemed to confirm
a historical explanation of cell generation. The
same direct observation of continuous stages of
development was also possible when they examined
the complex sequence of events of embryogenesis.
In both cases, the observer received a concrete
impression that the daughter cell was brought into
being, or caused, by the prior cell. The argument
that these scientists employed confuses temporal
succession and causal explanation, of course,
but such confusion is the heart of most historical
explanation.
Not surprisingly, the evolutionary biologists of
the nineteenth century encountered a particularly
troublesome problem in their attempts to document
historical explanation convincingly: the factual record
of the history of life on earth (e.g., that provided by
fossils) was incomplete. The temporal continuity of
living forms was convincing, but was an assumption
that was difficult to uphold when one compared
species or organisms forming any two stages of the
evolutionary record. Nineteenth-century biologists
recognized this problem and attempted to resolve
it. Their solution today appears to be only verbal,
but was then regarded as eminently causal. The fact
of evolution demanded some connection between
all reproducing individuals and the species that they
compose, as well as between living species and
their extinct ancestors. Their solution, the concept
of heredity, seemed to fill in an admittedly deficient
historical record and seemed to complete the
argument for a historical explanation of evolutionary events.
a turning point in the history of biology—biologists
became less interested in applying an ideal of
historical explanation deductively to organic function and more interested in discerning the causes of vital
processes through experimental manipulation. But it
is impossible to discuss the history of biology in the
nineteenth century without emphasizing that those
areas of biology most in the public eye had depended
on historical explanation. Wherever it was applied,
historical explanation was deemed causal explanation.
The biologist-as-historian and the general historian of
human events dealt with comparable phenomena and
assumed necessarily a common mode of explanation.
Nineteenth-century biologists found a historical
explanation of organic function attractive partly
because their observation of the formation of a
new cell from a preexisting cell seemed to confirm
a historical explanation of cell generation. The
same direct observation of continuous stages of
development was also possible when they examined
the complex sequence of events of embryogenesis.
In both cases, the observer received a concrete
impression that the daughter cell was brought into
being, or caused, by the prior cell. The argument
that these scientists employed confuses temporal
succession and causal explanation, of course,
but such confusion is the heart of most historical
explanation.
Not surprisingly, the evolutionary biologists of
the nineteenth century encountered a particularly
troublesome problem in their attempts to document
historical explanation convincingly: the factual record
of the history of life on earth (e.g., that provided by
fossils) was incomplete. The temporal continuity of
living forms was convincing, but was an assumption
that was difficult to uphold when one compared
species or organisms forming any two stages of the
evolutionary record. Nineteenth-century biologists
recognized this problem and attempted to resolve
it. Their solution today appears to be only verbal,
but was then regarded as eminently causal. The fact
of evolution demanded some connection between
all reproducing individuals and the species that they
compose, as well as between living species and
their extinct ancestors. Their solution, the concept
of heredity, seemed to fill in an admittedly deficient
historical record and seemed to complete the
argument for a historical explanation of evolutionary events.
According to information presented in the passage, which of the following is a true statement about the methods of explanation used by biologists and historians in the nineteenth century?
A:Neither biologists nor historians were able to develop methods of explanation that were accepted by the majority of their colleagues.
B:The methods used by biologists to explain phenomena changed dramatically, whereas the methods used by historians to explain events did not change as noticeably.
C:Biologists believed that they had refined the methods of explanation used by historians.
D:Biologists' and historians' methods of explaining what they believed to be comparable phenomena were similar.
E:Although biologists and historians adopted similar methods of explanation, the biologists were more apologetic about their use of these methods.
参考答案及共享解析
共享解析来源为网络权威资源、GMAT高分考生等； 如有疑问，欢迎在评论区提问与讨论
本题耗时：
已选答案：
正确答案：
D:Biologists' and historians' methods of explaining what they believed to be comparable phenomena were similar.
答案 D
根据文章中所提供的信息，下面哪一个是生物学家和历史学家在十九世纪使用的解释方法的真实陈述？
选项分析：
作者认为生物学家是历史学家，人类事件的历史学家处理类似的现象，并假设必须有一种共同的解释模式。换句话说，这表明生物学家和历史学家的方法在解释他们认为是可比现象的过程中是相似的。
A.生物学家和历史学家都不可能发展出他们大多数同事所接受的解释方法。这段文字表明，十九世纪大部分时间的生物学家倾向于使用历史解释。据推测，生物学家无法开发出大多数同事都能接受的方法，这并非事实。
B.生物学家用来解释现象的方法发生了巨大的变化，而历史学家用来解释事件的方法并没有明显改变。这篇文章表明，生物学家使用的方法在19世纪末发生了重大变化。然而，这篇文章中没有任何东西表明，历史学家的方法在什么程度上发生了变化。
C.生物学家认为他们已经完善了历史学家使用的解释方法。文章认为，生物学家认为，在观察胚胎发生和细胞形成过程中，生物学中历史解释的效用存在着明显的理由。然而，没有迹象表明这些生物学家认为他们已经改进了历史学家所使用的历史方法。
D.生物学家和历史学家解释他们认为是可比现象的方法是相似的。正确
E.虽然生物学家和历史学家采用了类似的解释方法，生物学家们对这些方法的使用更为抱歉。生物学家在十九世纪为他们的方法道歉的唯一证据是他们的方法的转折点在本世纪末已经存在。这当然只是生物学家道歉的微弱证据。即使这些生物学家道歉，文章中也没有任何证据表明历史学家是否或多或少地道歉。
根据文章中所提供的信息，下面哪一个是生物学家和历史学家在十九世纪使用的解释方法的真实陈述？
选项分析：
作者认为生物学家是历史学家，人类事件的历史学家处理类似的现象，并假设必须有一种共同的解释模式。换句话说，这表明生物学家和历史学家的方法在解释他们认为是可比现象的过程中是相似的。
A.生物学家和历史学家都不可能发展出他们大多数同事所接受的解释方法。这段文字表明，十九世纪大部分时间的生物学家倾向于使用历史解释。据推测，生物学家无法开发出大多数同事都能接受的方法，这并非事实。
B.生物学家用来解释现象的方法发生了巨大的变化，而历史学家用来解释事件的方法并没有明显改变。这篇文章表明，生物学家使用的方法在19世纪末发生了重大变化。然而，这篇文章中没有任何东西表明，历史学家的方法在什么程度上发生了变化。
C.生物学家认为他们已经完善了历史学家使用的解释方法。文章认为，生物学家认为，在观察胚胎发生和细胞形成过程中，生物学中历史解释的效用存在着明显的理由。然而，没有迹象表明这些生物学家认为他们已经改进了历史学家所使用的历史方法。
D.生物学家和历史学家解释他们认为是可比现象的方法是相似的。正确
E.虽然生物学家和历史学家采用了类似的解释方法，生物学家们对这些方法的使用更为抱歉。生物学家在十九世纪为他们的方法道歉的唯一证据是他们的方法的转折点在本世纪末已经存在。这当然只是生物学家道歉的微弱证据。即使这些生物学家道歉，文章中也没有任何证据表明历史学家是否或多或少地道歉。
加入收藏
在线答疑
题目来源
