He appreciated （）the chance to deliver his thesis in the annual symposium on Comparative Literature

A:having given              B:to have been given C:to have given             D:having been given

Text 4
The historian Frederick J. Turner wrote in the 1890’s that the agrarian discontent that had been developing steadily in the United States since about 1870 had been speeded by the closing of the internal frontier -- that is, the depletion of available new land needed for further expansion of the American farming system. Not only was Turner’s thesis influential at the time, it was later adopted and elaborated by other scholars, such as John D. Hicks in The populist Revolt (1931). Actually, however, new lands were taken up for farming in the United States throughout and beyond the nineteenth century. In the 1890’s, when agrarian discontent had become most acute, 1,100,000 new farms were settled, which was 500,000 more than had been settled during the previous decade. After 1890, under the terms of the Homestead Act and its successors, more new land was taken up for fanning than had been taken up for this purpose in the United states up until that time. It is true that a high proportion of the newly fanned land was suitable only for grazing and dry farming, but agricultural practices had become sufficiently advanced to make it possible to increase the profitability of farming by utilizing even these relatively barren lands.
The emphasis given by both scholars and statesmen to the presumed disappearance ’of the American frontier helped to obscure the great importance of changes in the conditions and consequences of international trade that occurred during the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1869 the Suez Canal was opened and the first transcontinental railroad in the United States was completed. An extensive network of telegraph and telephone communications was spun: Europe was connected by submarine cable with the United States in 1866 and with South America in 1874. By about 1870 improvements in agricultural technology made possible the full exploitation of areas that were most suitable for extensive farming on a mechanized basis. Huge tracts of land were being settled and farmed in Argentina, Australia, Canada, and in the American West, and these areas were joined with one another and with the countries of Europe into an interdependent market system. As a consequence, agrarian depressions no longer were local or national in scope, and they struck several nations whose internal frontiers had not vanished or were not about to vanish. Between the early 1870’s and the 1890’s the mounting agrarian discontent in America paralleled the almost uninterrupted decline in the prices of American agricultural products on foreign markets. Those staple-growing farmers in the United States who exhibited the greatest discontent were who had become most dependent on foreign markets for the sale of their products. In so far as Americans had been deterred from taking up new land for farming, it was because market conditions had made this period a perilous time in which to do so.

The author provides information concerning newly farmed lands in the United States in paragraph 1 to support（）

A:a proposal by Frederick J. Turner that was later disputed by John D. Hicks. B:an elaboration by John D. Hicks of thesis that formerly had been questioned by Turner. C:the thesis that important changes occurred in the nature of international trade during the second half of the 19th century. D:the view that the American frontier did not become closed during the 19th century or soon thereafter.

Text 4 The historian Frederick J. Turner wrote in the 1890’s that the agrarian discontent that had been developing steadily in the United States since about 1870 had been speeded by the closing of the internal frontier -- that is, the depletion of available new land needed for further expansion of the American farming system. Not only was Turner’s thesis influential at the time, it was later adopted and elaborated by other scholars, such as John D. Hicks in The populist Revolt (1931). Actually, however, new lands were taken up for farming in the United States throughout and beyond the nineteenth century. In the 1890’s, when agrarian discontent had become most acute, 1,100,000 new farms were settled, which was 500,000 more than had been settled during the previous decade. After 1890, under the terms of the Homestead Act and its successors, more new land was taken up for fanning than had been taken up for this purpose in the United states up until that time. It is true that a high proportion of the newly fanned land was suitable only for grazing and dry farming, but agricultural practices had become sufficiently advanced to make it possible to increase the profitability of farming by utilizing even these relatively barren lands. The emphasis given by both scholars and statesmen to the presumed disappearance ’of the American frontier helped to obscure the great importance of changes in the conditions and consequences of international trade that occurred during the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1869 the Suez Canal was opened and the first transcontinental railroad in the United States was completed. An extensive network of telegraph and telephone communications was spun: Europe was connected by submarine cable with the United States in 1866 and with South America in 1874. By about 1870 improvements in agricultural technology made possible the full exploitation of areas that were most suitable for extensive farming on a mechanized basis. Huge tracts of land were being settled and farmed in Argentina, Australia, Canada, and in the American West, and these areas were joined with one another and with the countries of Europe into an interdependent market system. As a consequence, agrarian depressions no longer were local or national in scope, and they struck several nations whose internal frontiers had not vanished or were not about to vanish. Between the early 1870’s and the 1890’s the mounting agrarian discontent in America paralleled the almost uninterrupted decline in the prices of American agricultural products on foreign markets. Those staple-growing farmers in the United States who exhibited the greatest discontent were who had become most dependent on foreign markets for the sale of their products. In so far as Americans had been deterred from taking up new land for farming, it was because market conditions had made this period a perilous time in which to do so.

The author provides information concerning newly farmed lands in the United States in paragraph 1 to support（）

A:a proposal by Frederick J. Turner that was later disputed by John D. Hicks. B:an elaboration by John D. Hicks of thesis that formerly had been questioned by Turner. C:the thesis that important changes occurred in the nature of international trade during the second half of the 19th century. D:the view that the American frontier did not become closed during the 19th century or soon thereafter.

Among the many other things it is, a portrait is always a record of the personal and artistic encounter that produced it. It is possible for artists to produce portraits of individuals who have not sat for them, but the portrait that finally emerges normally betrays the restrictions under which the artist has been forced to labor. Even when an artist’’s portrait is simply a copy of someone else’’s work-as in the many portraits of Queen Elizabeth I that were produced during her lifetime-the never-changing features of a ruler who refused to sit for her court painters reflect not only the supposed powers of an ever-youthful queen but the remoteness of those attempting to depict her as well. 　　Portraits are "occasional" not only in the sense that they are closely tied to particular events in the lives of their subjects but in the sense that there is usually an occasion-however brief, uncomfortable, artificial, or unsatisfactory it may prove to be-in which the artist and subject directly confront each other;and thus the encounter a portrait records is most really the sitting itself. The sitting may be brief or extended, collegial or confrontational. Cartier-Bresson has expressed his passion for portrait photography by characterizing it as "a duel without rules". While Cartier-Bresson reveals himself as an interloper and opportunist, Richard Avedon confesses to a role as diagnostician and psychic healer: not as someone who necessarily transforms his subjects, but as someone who reveals their essential nature. Both photographers appear to agree on one basis, however, which is that the fundamental dynamic in this process lies squarely in the hands of the artist. 　　A quite-different example has its roots not in confrontation or consultation but in active collaboration between the artist and sitter. This very different kind of relationship was formulated most vividly by William Hazlitt in his essay entitled "On Sitting for One’’s Picture". To Hazlitt, the "bond of connection" between painter and sitter is most like the relationship between two lovers: "They are always thinking and talking of the same thing, in which their self love finds an equal counterpart." Hazlitt flashes out his thesis by recounting particular episodes from the career of Sir Joshua Reynolds. According to Hazlitt, Reynolds’’ sitters, accompanied by their friends, were meant to enjoy an atmosphere that was both comfortable for them and conductive to the enterprise of the portrait painter, who was simultaneously their host and their contractual employee. In the case of artists like Reynolds, no fundamental difference exists between the artist’’s studio and all those other rooms in which the sitters spin out the days of their lives. The act of entering Reynolds’’ studio did not necessarily transform those who sat for him. Collaboration in portraiture such as Reynolds’’ is based on the sitter’’s comfort and security as well as on his or her desire to experiment with something new, and it is in this "creation of another self", as Hazlitt put it, that the painter’’s subjects may properly see themselves for the first time. The author quotes Cartier-Bresson in order to

A:refute Avedon’’s conception about a portrait sitting. B:provide one perspective of the portraiture encounter. C:exemplify time restriction of the sitting for portraiture. D:support the thesis on the uncertainty of a collegial sitting

Among the many other things it is, a portrait is always a record of the personal and artistic encounter that produced it. It is possible for artists to produce portraits of individuals who have not sat for them, but the portrait that finally emerges normally betrays the restrictions under which the artist has been forced to labor. Even when an artist’’s portrait is simply a copy of someone else’’s work-as in the many portraits of Queen Elizabeth I that were produced during her lifetime-the never-changing features of a ruler who refused to sit for her court painters reflect not only the supposed powers of an ever-youthful queen but the remoteness of those attempting to depict her as well. 　　Portraits are "occasional" not only in the sense that they are closely tied to particular events in the lives of their subjects but in the sense that there is usually an occasion-however brief, uncomfortable, artificial, or unsatisfactory it may prove to be-in which the artist and subject directly confront each other;and thus the encounter a portrait records is most really the sitting itself. The sitting may be brief or extended, collegial or confrontational. Cartier-Bresson has expressed his passion for portrait photography by characterizing it as "a duel without rules". While Cartier-Bresson reveals himself as an interloper and opportunist, Richard Avedon confesses to a role as diagnostician and psychic healer: not as someone who necessarily transforms his subjects, but as someone who reveals their essential nature. Both photographers appear to agree on one basis, however, which is that the fundamental dynamic in this process lies squarely in the hands of the artist. 　　A quite-different example has its roots not in confrontation or consultation but in active collaboration between the artist and sitter. This very different kind of relationship was formulated most vividly by William Hazlitt in his essay entitled "On Sitting for One’’s Picture". To Hazlitt, the "bond of connection" between painter and sitter is most like the relationship between two lovers: "They are always thinking and talking of the same thing, in which their self love finds an equal counterpart." Hazlitt flashes out his thesis by recounting particular episodes from the career of Sir Joshua Reynolds. According to Hazlitt, Reynolds’’ sitters, accompanied by their friends, were meant to enjoy an atmosphere that was both comfortable for them and conductive to the enterprise of the portrait painter, who was simultaneously their host and their contractual employee. In the case of artists like Reynolds, no fundamental difference exists between the artist’’s studio and all those other rooms in which the sitters spin out the days of their lives. The act of entering Reynolds’’ studio did not necessarily transform those who sat for him. Collaboration in portraiture such as Reynolds’’ is based on the sitter’’s comfort and security as well as on his or her desire to experiment with something new, and it is in this "creation of another self", as Hazlitt put it, that the painter’’s subjects may properly see themselves for the first time. The author quotes Cartier-Bresson in order to

A:refute Avedon’’s conception about a portrait sitting. B:provide one perspective of the portraiture encounter. C:exemplify time restriction of the sitting for portraiture. D:support the thesis on the uncertainty of a collegial sitting

The historian Frederick J. Turner wrote in the 1890’s that the agrarian discontent that had been developing steadily in the United States since about 1870 had been speeded by the closing of the internal frontier -- that is, the depletion of available new land needed for further expansion of the American farming system. Not only was Turner’s thesis influential at the time, it was later adopted and elaborated by other scholars, such as John D. Hicks in The populist Revolt (1931). Actually, however, new lands were taken up for farming in the United States throughout and beyond the nineteenth century. In the 1890’s, when agrarian discontent had become most acute, 1,100,000 new farms were settled, which was 500,000 more than had been settled during the previous decade. After 1890, under the terms of the Homestead Act and its successors, more new land was taken up for fanning than had been taken up for this purpose in the United states up until that time. It is true that a high proportion of the newly fanned land was suitable only for grazing and dry farming, but agricultural practices had become sufficiently advanced to make it possible to increase the profitability of farming by utilizing even these relatively barren lands.
The emphasis given by both scholars and statesmen to the presumed disappearance ’of the American frontier helped to obscure the great importance of changes in the conditions and consequences of international trade that occurred during the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1869 the Suez Canal was opened and the first transcontinental railroad in the United States was completed. An extensive network of telegraph and telephone communications was spun: Europe was connected by submarine cable with the United States in 1866 and with South America in 1874. By about 1870 improvements in agricultural technology made possible the full exploitation of areas that were most suitable for extensive farming on a mechanized basis. Huge tracts of land were being settled and farmed in Argentina, Australia, Canada, and in the American West, and these areas were joined with one another and with the countries of Europe into an interdependent market system. As a consequence, agrarian depressions no longer were local or national in scope, and they struck several nations whose internal frontiers had not vanished or were not about to vanish. Between the early 1870’s and the 1890’s the mounting agrarian discontent in America paralleled the almost uninterrupted decline in the prices of American agricultural products on foreign markets. Those staple-growing farmers in the United States who exhibited the greatest discontent were who had become most dependent on foreign markets for the sale of their products. In so far as Americans had been deterred from taking up new land for farming, it was because market conditions had made this period a perilous time in which to do so.

The author provides information concerning newly farmed lands in the United States in paragraph 1 to support（）

A:a proposal by Frederick J. Turner that was later disputed by John Hicks B:an elaboration by John Hicks of thesis that formerly had been questioned by Turner C:the thesis that important changes occurred in the nature of international trade during the second half of the 19th century D:the view that the American frontier did not become closed during the 19th century or soon thereafter