问题 综合题

美国科技史学家内森·罗森堡在《技术与美国经济的增长》一书中写道:“当19世纪美国开始工业化的时候,它是踏上了一条大不列颠早已指明的道路。”美国崛起后又对欧洲产生了深远影响。

阅读下列材料:

材料一  欧化所涉及的不仅仅是政治统治或文化渗透。它还包括实际的生物取代即一个民族对另一民族的有形的取代……带着他们的政治制度、谋生方法和文化传统蜂拥而入,占据了土著居民的领土。因此,随海外地区种族上的欧化而来的必然是政治、经济和文化上的欧化。

——斯塔夫里阿诺斯《全球通史》

材料二 事实的真相是这样的,欧洲今后三年到四年的对于国外食品和其他生活必需品的需要——主要是从美国——是如此巨大,以至于以她现今的能力是无法支付的而必须获得巨大的额外的帮助,否则她将面临经济、社会和政治的恶化这多种非常可怕的状况。

——马歇尔在哈佛大学毕业典礼上的演讲(1947年)

请回答:

近代以来,欧美之间联系已日益密切。试综合上述材料和所学知识,评述材料中的观点。(12分)

(要求:观点理解准确;史论结合;逻辑严密;表述清楚;200字左右。)

答案

欧美社会发展相互推动。

近代以来,欧洲对美洲的侵略推动了美国的进步(如欧洲给美国带来了资本主义政体、劳动力、技术、启蒙思想等);也推动了欧洲的发展(为欧洲提供了资本原始积累、三角贸易中为欧洲提供了原料等)。

二战后,马歇尔计划促使欧洲经济复兴,有利于美国控制西欧、遏制 * * 主义苏联,也为美国提供了广阔的海外市场。

评分标准:

一等(12~10分)

①紧扣评论对象,观点明确(如欧美社会发展相互推动;如观点只谈到欧洲推动美国发展或美国历史推动欧洲进步酌情降等);

②至少要有欧洲对美洲侵略和马歇尔计划这两个角度,合理引用史实 

③论证充分,逻辑严密,表述清楚。

二等(9~5分)

①能够结合评论对象,观点较明确;

②引用史实,评论角度单一;

③论证较完整,表述清楚。

三等(4~O分)

①偏离评论对象,观点不明确;

②未引用史实;

③论证欠缺说服力。,表述不清楚。

题目分析:题目要求是评述材料的观点,即包括述和评的两个方面,首先要依据材料概括出材料主要观点,要求观点明确,其次对该观点进行评价,要善于运用史实进行充分的论证。在表述上要语句通顺,逻辑严密、表述清楚。材料一的观点是欧洲队美洲的侵略促进了美洲的欧化,尤其是美国社会的进步。侵略本身也促进了欧洲资本主义的发展和崛起;材料二提及马歇尔计划的实施对欧洲和美国的影响,对欧洲来说恢复了经济,稳定了社会秩序,对美国来说,有利于美国控制西欧、遏制 * * 主义苏联,也为美国提供了广阔的海外市场。综合来看两段材料的观点是欧美社会发展是相互影响相互推动的。欧洲对美洲的侵略推动了美国的进步论据可从如欧洲给美国带来了资本主义政体、劳动力、技术、启蒙思想等方面思考;推动了欧洲的发展包括为欧洲提供了资本原始积累、三角贸易中为欧洲提供了原料等。

名词解释
单项选择题

The Supreme Court will hear arguments about the use of public money for the private schooling of children with special needs. It’s interesting to note what’s not at issue: namely, that when a public school system is unable to provide an appropriate education, it is obligated to pay the costs of private school. Too bad poor children don’t have that unshakable right; if they did, there would be no controversy about the District program that gives vouchers to low-income children to attend private schools.

The case to be heard by the court hinges on whether parents have to enroll a child with special needs in public school before the child can attend private school at public expense. Special-education advocates say students shouldn’t have to waste time before being placed in a setting that best suits their needs, while school boards worry about a ruling that could amount to an unfettered fight to private schooling at public expense. What strikes us about the emotionally charged debate is the acceptance by both sides that sometimes it is appropriate to use public money to pay for a child to go to a private school. So, why all the arguments about the approximately$14 million for a federally funded program that lets 1,700 D. C. students attend private schools instead of failing public schools

To hear critics of the D. C. Opportunity Scholarship Program tell it, the use of public money for private schooling is as unprecedented as it is undesirable. In addition to the billions of dollars spent annually on private school tuitions for students with disabilities, private schools get public money for books, technology and teacher training. As long as the money is seen as benefiting the child, it is considered a proper, even desirable, use of public dollars.

Don’t get us wrong. We’re not arguing for the unilateral right of parents to enroll their sons and daughters in any school they wish with the taxpayers picking up the bill. Abuse of special-education policies has contributed to increased costs that threaten to take needed money from general public education funds. Safeguards are needed. Public schools should be pressed to do a better job for students with disabilities and students without. But there are schools in Washington where statistics show that failure is almost guaranteed. If a school system can’t educate a child—whether because of acute special needs or its own historical failings—why should that child not have options for a " free appropriate public education "

What can be inferred from the arguments at the Supreme Court()

A. Too much public money is put into the private schools for children with special needs

B. Public schools are of very poor education quality

C. People consider it is reasonable to use public money for certain students’ private schooling

D. People find it is amusing arguing about spending public money for private schooling