Text 4
A recent history of the Chicago meat-packing industry and its workers examines how the industry grew from its appearance in the 1830’s through the early 1890’s. Meat-packers, the author argues, had good wages, working conditions, and prospects from advancement within the packinghouses and did not cooperate with labor agitators since labor relations were so harmonious. Because the history maintains that conditions were above standard for the year, the frequency of labor disputes, especially in the mid-1880’s, is not accounted for the work ignores the fact that the 1880’s were crucial years in American labor history, and that the packinghouse workers’ efforts were part of the national movement for labor reform.
In fact, other historical sources for the late nineteenth century record deteriorating housing and high disease and infant mortality rates in the industrial community, due to low wages and unhealthy working conditions. Additional data from the University of Chicago suggest that the packinghouses were dangerous places to work. The government investigation commissioned by President Theodore Roosevelt which eventually led to the adoption of the 1906 Meat Inspection Act found the packing- houses unsanitary, while social workers observed that most of the workers were poorly paid and over- worked.
The history may be too optimistic because most of its data date from the 1880’s at the latest, and the information provided from that decade is insufficiently analyzed. Conditions actually declined in the 1880’s, and continued to decline after the 18g0’s, due to a reorganization of the packing process and a massive influx of unskilled workers. The deterioration in worker status, partly a result of the new availability of unskilled and hence cheap labor, is not discussed. Though a detailed account of work in the packinghouses is attempted, the author fails to distinguish between the wages and conditions of skilled workers and for those unskilled laborers who comprised the majority of the industry’s workers from the lgg0’s on. While conditions for the former were arguably tolerable due to the strategic importance of skilled workers in the complicated slaughtering, cutting, and packing process (though worker complaints about the rate and conditions of work were frequent), pay and conditions for the latter were wretched.
The author’s misinterpretation of the origins of the feelings the meat-packers had for their industrial neighborhood may account for the history’s faulty generalizations. The pride and contentment the author remarks upon were, arguably, less the products of the industrial world of the packers -- the giant yards and the intricate plants -- than of the unity and vibrancy of the ethnic cultures that formed a viable community on Chicago’s South Side. Indeed the strength of this community succeeded in generating a social movement that effectively confronted the problems of the industry that provided its livelihood.

A:how historians should explain the origins of the conditions in the Chicago meat-packing industry, B:why it is difficult to determine the actual nature of the conditions in the Chicago meat- packing industry. C:why a particular account of the conditions in the Chicago meat-packing industry is inaccurate. D:what should be included in any account of the Chicago meat-packers’ role in the national labor movement.

A recent history of the Chicago meat-packing industry and its workers examines how the industry grew from its appearance in the 1830’s through the early 1890’s. Meatpackers, the author argues, had good wages, working conditions, and prospects for advancement within the packinghouses, and did not cooperate with labor agitators since labor relations were so harmonious. Because the history maintains that conditions were above standard for the era, the frequency of labor disputes, especially in the mid-1880’s, is not accounted for. The work ignores the fact that the 1880’s were crucial years in American labor history, and that the’ packinghouse workers’ efforts were part of the national movement for labor reform.
In fact, other historical sources for the late nineteenth century record deteriorating housing and high disease and infant mortality rates in the industrial community, due to low wages and unhealthy working conditions. Additional data from the University of Chicago suggest that the packing houses were dangerous places to work. The government investigation commissioned by President Theodore Roosevelt which eventually led to the adoption of the 1906 Meat Inspection Act found the packinghouses unsanitary, while social workers observed that most of the workers were poorly paid and overworked. The history may be too optimistic because most of its data date from the 1880 ’s at the latest, and the information provided from that decade is insufficiently analyzed. Conditions actually declined in the 1880’s, and continued to decline after the 1880’s, due to a reorganization of the packing process and a massive influx of unskilled workers. The ’deterioration, in worker status, partly a result of the new availability of unskilled and hence cheap labor, is not discussed. Though a detailed account of work in the packing houses is attempted, the author fails to distinguish between the wages and conditions for skilled workers and for those unskilled laborers who comprised the majority of the industry’s workers from the 1880’s on. While conditions for the former were arguably tolerable due to the strategic importance of skilled workers in the complicated slaughtering, cutting and packing process (though worker complaints about the rate and conditions of work were frequent), pay and conditions for the latter were wretched.
The author’s misinterpretation of the origins of the feelings the meat-packers had for their industrial neighborhood may account for the history’s faulty generalizations. The pride and contentment the author remarks upon were, arguably, less the products of the industrial world of the packers—the giant yards and the intricate plants—than of the unity and vibrancy of the ethnic cultures that formed a viable community on Chicago’s South Side. Indeed, the strength of this community succeeded in generating a social movement that effectively confronted the problems of the industry that provided its livelihood.
The passage is primarily concerned with discussing ______.

A:how historians ought to explain the origins of the conditions in the Chicago meat- packing industry B:why it is difficult to determine the actual nature of the conditions in the Chicago meat-packing industry C:why a particular account of the conditions in the Chicago meat-packing industry is inaccurate D:what ought to be included in any account of the Chicago meat-packers’ rote in the national labor movement

A recent history of the Chicago meat-packing industry and its workers examines how the industry grew from its appearance in the 1830’s through the early 1890’s. Meatpackers, the author argues, had good wages, working conditions, and prospects for advancement within the packinghouses, and did not cooperate with labor agitators since labor relations were so harmonious. Because the history maintains that conditions were above standard for the era, the frequency of labor disputes, especially in the mid-1880’s, is not accounted for. The work ignores the fact that the 1880’s were crucial years in American labor history, and that the’ packinghouse workers’ efforts were part of the national movement for labor reform.
In fact, other historical sources for the late nineteenth century record deteriorating housing and high disease and infant mortality rates in the industrial community, due to low wages and unhealthy working conditions. Additional data from the University of Chicago suggest that the packing houses were dangerous places to work. The government investigation commissioned by President Theodore Roosevelt which eventually led to the adoption of the 1906 Meat Inspection Act found the packinghouses unsanitary, while social workers observed that most of the workers were poorly paid and overworked. The history may be too optimistic because most of its data date from the 1880 ’s at the latest, and the information provided from that decade is insufficiently analyzed. Conditions actually declined in the 1880’s, and continued to decline after the 1880’s, due to a reorganization of the packing process and a massive influx of unskilled workers. The ’deterioration, in worker status, partly a result of the new availability of unskilled and hence cheap labor, is not discussed. Though a detailed account of work in the packing houses is attempted, the author fails to distinguish between the wages and conditions for skilled workers and for those unskilled laborers who comprised the majority of the industry’s workers from the 1880’s on. While conditions for the former were arguably tolerable due to the strategic importance of skilled workers in the complicated slaughtering, cutting and packing process (though worker complaints about the rate and conditions of work were frequent), pay and conditions for the latter were wretched.
The author’s misinterpretation of the origins of the feelings the meat-packers had for their industrial neighborhood may account for the history’s faulty generalizations. The pride and contentment the author remarks upon were, arguably, less the products of the industrial world of the packers—the giant yards and the intricate plants—than of the unity and vibrancy of the ethnic cultures that formed a viable community on Chicago’s South Side. Indeed, the strength of this community succeeded in generating a social movement that effectively confronted the problems of the industry that provided its livelihood.

A:how historians ought to explain the origins of the conditions in the Chicago meat- packing industry B:why it is difficult to determine the actual nature of the conditions in the Chicago meat-packing industry C:why a particular account of the conditions in the Chicago meat-packing industry is inaccurate D:what ought to be included in any account of the Chicago meat-packers’ rote in the national labor movement

The author mentions the "social movement" (Last paragraph) generated by Chicago’s South Side community primarily in order to

A:inform the reader of events that occurred in the meat-packing industry. B:suggest the history’s limitations by pointing out a situation that the history failed to explain adequately. C:introduce a new issue designed to elaborate on the good relationship between meatpackers and Chicago's ethnic communities. D:suggest that the history should have focused more on the relationship between labor movement and healthy industrial communities.

Anyone who cares about what schools and colleges teach and how their students learn will be interested in the memoir(回忆录) of Ralph W. Tyler, who is one of the most famous men in American education.
Born in Chicago in 1902, brought up and schooled in Nebraska, the 19-year-old college graduate Ralph Tyler became hooked on teaching while teaching as a science teacher in South Dakota and changed his major from medicine to education.
Graduate work at the University of Chicago found him connected with honorable educators Charles Judd and W. W. Charters, whose ideas of teaching and testing had an effect on his later work. In 1927, he became a teacher of Ohio State University where he further developed a new method of testing.
Tyler became well-known in 1938, when he carried his work with the Eight-Year Study from Ohio State University to the University of Chicago at the invitation of Robert Hutchins.
Tyler was the first director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, a position he held for fourteen years. There, he firmly believed that researchers should be free to seek an independent (独立的)spirit in their work.
Although Tyler officially retired in 1967, he never actually retired. He served on a long list of educational organizations in the United States and abroad. Even in his 80s he traveled across the country to advise teachers and management people on how to set objectives (目标) to develop the best teaching and learning within their schools.
Where did Tyler work as the leader of a research center for over 10 years

A:The University of Chicago. B:Stanford University. C:Ohio State University. D:Nebraska University.

A Anyone who cares about what schools and colleges teach and how their students learn will be interested in the memoir(回忆录) of Ralph W.Tyler, who is one of the most famous men in American education. Born in Chicago in 1902, brought up and schooled in Nebraska, the 19-year-old college graduate Ralph Tyler became hooked on teaching while teaching as a science teacher in South Dakota and changed his major from medicine to education. Graduate work at the University of Chicago found him connected with honorable educators Charles Judd and W. W. Charters, whose ideas of teaching and testing had an effect on his later work. In 1927, he became a teacher of Ohio State University where he further developed a new method of testing. Tyler became well-known in 1938, when he carried his work with the Eight-Year Study from O-hio State University to the University of Chicago at the invitation of Robert Hutchins. Tyler was the first director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, a position he held for fourteen years. There, he firmly believed that researchers should be free to seek an independent(独立的)spirit in their work. Although Tyler officially retired in 1967, he never actually retired. He served on a long list of educational organizations in the United States and abroad. Even in his 80s he traveled across the country to advise teachers and management people on how to set objectives (目标)to develop the best teaching and learning within their schools.

A:The University of Chicago. B:Stanford University. C:Ohio State University. D:Nebraska University.

Anyone who cares about what schools and colleges teach and how their students learn will be interested in the memoir(回忆录) of Ralph W. Tyler, who is one of the most famous men in American education.
Born in Chicago in 1902, brought up and schooled in Nebraska, the 19-year-old college graduate Ralph Tyler became hooked on teaching while teaching as a science teacher in South Dakota and changed his major from medicine to education.
Graduate work at the University of Chicago found him connected with honorable educators Charles Judd and W. W. Charters, whose ideas of teaching and testing had an effect on his later work. In 1927, he became a teacher of Ohio State University where he further developed a new method of testing.
Tyler became well-known in 1938, when he carried his work with the Eight-Year Study from Ohio State University to the University of Chicago at the invitation of Robert Hutchins.
Tyler was the first director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, a position he held for fourteen years. There, he firmly believed that researchers should be free to seek an independent (独立的)spirit in their work.
Although Tyler officially retired in 1967, he never actually retired. He served on a long list of educational organizations in the United States and abroad. Even in his 80s he traveled across the country to advise teachers and management people on how to set objectives (目标) to develop the best teaching and learning within their schools.
Where did Tyler work as the leader of a research center for over 10 years

A:The University of Chicago. B:Stanford University. C:Ohio State University. D:Nebraska University.

Anyone who cares about what schools and colleges teach and how their students learn will be interested in the memoir(回忆录) of Ralph W. Tyler, who is one of the most famous men in American education.
Born in Chicago in 1902, brought up and schooled in Nebraska, the 19-year-old college graduate Ralph Tyler became hooked on teaching while teaching as a science teacher in South Dakota and changed his major from medicine to education.
Graduate work at the University of Chicago found him connected with honorable educators Charles Judd and W. W. Charters, whose ideas of teaching and testing had an effect on his later work. In 1927, he became a teacher of Ohio State University where he further developed a new method of testing.
Tyler became well-known in 1938, when he carried his work with the Eight-Year Study from Ohio State University to the University of Chicago at the invitation of Robert Hutchins.
Tyler was the first director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, a position he held for fourteen years. There, he firmly believed that researchers should be free to seek an independent (独立的)spirit in their work.
Although Tyler officially retired in 1967, he never actually retired. He served on a long list of educational organizations in the United States and abroad. Even in his 80s he traveled across the country to advise teachers and management people on how to set objectives (目标) to develop the best teaching and learning within their schools.
Where did Tyler work as the leader of a research center for over 10 years

A:The University of Chicago. B:Stanford University. C:Ohio State University. D:Nebraska University.