Behind every book review there are two key figures: a book review editor and a reviewer.Editors decide whether a book is reviewed in their publication, when the review appears, how long it is, and who writes the review.
When many periodicals feature the same books, this does not prove that the editors of different periodicals have not made individual decisions. Before publication, editors receive news releases and printer’s proofs of certain books, signifying that the publishers will make special efforts to promote these books. They will be heavily advertised and probably be among the books that most bookstores order in quantity. Not having such books reviewed might give the impression that the editor was caught napping, whereas too many reviews of books that readers will have trouble finding in stores would be inappropriate. Editors can risk having a few of the less popular titles reviewed, but they must consider what will be newsworthy, advertised, and written about elsewhere.
If these were the only factors influencing editors, few books that stand little chance of selling well would ever be reviewed. But editors feel some concern about what might endure, and therefore listen to literary experts. A generation ago, a newspaper used a brilliant system of choosing which books to feature. The book review editor sent out a greater number of books than reviews he actually intended to publish. If a review was unenthusiastic, he reasoned that the book was not important enough to be discussed immediately, and if good reviews of enough other books came in, the unenthusiastic review might never be printed. The unenthusiastic reviewers were paid promptly anyway, but they learned that if they wanted their material to be printed, it was advisable to be kind.
Most editors print favorable and unfavorable reviews; however, the content of the review may be influenced by the editor. Some editors would actually feel that they had failed in their responsibility if they gave books by authors they admired to hostile critics or books by authors they disapproved of to critics who might favor them. Editors usually can predict who would review a book enthusiastically and who would tear it to shreds.
Which of the following words, if substituted for “brilliant” in line 26, would LEAST change the meaning of the sentence?
showy艳丽的 articulate清晰的雄辩的 literate可读的 stingy吝啬的 Absurd荒谬的
那个所谓的brilliant system其实有很多问题：第一就是寄送远超所需的书给评论家，是不是有点铺张浪费了？第二就是第三段最后说brilliant system的判别标准是书评是否enthusiastic, 如果否，该书就可能永远都无法出版，那么那些想要自己评论的书被出版的书评家就不得不be kind, 也许就会造成不好的书他们也评价为好。作者的态度就显示出来了，是对zheg brilliant system很不屑的
哈哈，还是要对GMAT文章整体弘扬的三观有所了解：比如支持弱势群体、反对纯资本主义之类； 结合第二段第一句说“If these were the only factors influencing editors, few books that stand little chance of selling well would ever be reviewed.” （这种标准下不好买的书得不到书评）+ 第二句说"But editors feel some concern about what might endure"(编辑要考虑啥书好卖endure) 基本已经看明作者对这种editor和行为的鄙视了，那么接下来理解brilliant 的反语就不会太困难。
好吧我服了，，老外真的是字面意思翻译的，abc形容的东西概念都不同，直接就排掉了。。 A. Nothing in the passage conveys that the system, ironically designated brilliant, was showy, that is, eye-catching. B. Articulate could describe fluent or coherent speech, description, or writing, but it does not appropriately modify the noun system in this context. C. The adjective literate does not appropriately modify system; furthermore, it fails to convey a clear meaning that would match the ironic meaning of the modifier brilliant. D. The system does not seem to have a monetary purpose, so stingy would not fit. Note that the final sentence of the paragraph suggests that the system self-selects for books that are likely to be successful, potentially at the expense of writers who write “unenthusiastic reviews.” Nevertheless, the passage notes that the unpublished writers would still be paid, so their risk lies in not having their work read rather than in not being paid for their work. E. Correct. Among the answer choices, absurd best captures the ironic use of brilliant and preserves the meaning of the sentence as a whole. The correct answer is E.