While the best sixteenth-century Renaissance scholars mastered the classics of ancient Roman literature in the original Latin and understood them in their original historical context, most of the scholar's educated contemporaries knew the classics only from school lessons on selected Latin texts. These were chosen by Renaissance teachers after much deliberation, for works written by and for the sophisticated adults of pagan Rome were not always considered suitable for the Renaissance young: the central Roman classics refused (as classics often do) to teach appropriate morality and frequently suggested the opposite. Teachers accordingly made students' needs, not textual and historical accuracy, their supreme interest, chopping dangerous texts into short phrases, and using these to impart lessons extemporaneously on a variety of subjects, from syntax to science. Thus I believe that a modern reader cannot know the associations that a line of ancient Roman poetry or prose had for any particular educated sixteenth-century reader. => 我的理解: 16世紀文藝復興的學者自己受教育時, 他們研究的羅馬經典文學未經篩選, 原汁原味.但是當他們把經典教給學生時,刪除了跟異教徒有關不恰當的部分,因此現在學生 學習到的只是片段的知識,散亂在各學科間.主旨是"文藝復興學者"與"現在學生"兩者學習 的不同 1. The passage is primarily concerned with discussing the A.unsuitability of the Roman classics for the teaching of morality B.approach that sixteenth-century scholars took to learning the Roman classics C.effect that the Roman classics had on educated people in the Renaissance D.way in which the Roman classics were taught in the sixteenth-century E.contrast between the teaching of the Roman classics in the Renaissance and the teaching of the Roman classics today => 答案是D 可是我認為E也正確 甚至比D更適合 因為有講到兩者的比較?另外D正確的話 D與B的差別為何? 我也看不太出來@@ 很好奇我是哪裡理解錯誤,請各位版友多多指教,謝謝!! --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 50.198.14.125 ※ 文章網址: http://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/GRE/M.1409945233.A.C47.html ※ 編輯: thousandfish (50.198.14.125), 09/06/2014 23:42:19