In the two decades between 1910 and 1930, more than ten percent of the black population of the United States left the South, where the preponderance of the black population had been located, and migrated to northern states, with the largest number moving, it is claimed, between 1916 and 1918. It has been frequently assumed, but not proved, that the majority of the migrants in what has come to be called the Great Migration came from rural areas and were motivated by two concurrent factors: the collapse of the cotton industry following the boll weevil infestation, which began in 1898, and increased demand in the North for labor following the cessation of European immigration caused by the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. This assumption has led to the conclusion that the migrants’ subsequent lack of economic mobility in the North is tied to rural background, a background that implies unfamiliarity with urban living and a lack of industrial skills.But the question of who actually left the South has never been rigorously investigated. Although numerous investigations document an exodus from rural southern areas to southern cities prior to the Great Migration, no one has considered whether the same migrants then moved on to northern cities. In 1910 more than 600,000 black workers, or ten percent of the black workforce, reported themselves to be engaged in "manufacturing and mechanical pursuits," the federal census category roughly encompassing the entire industrial sector. The Great Migration could easily have been made up entirely of this group and their families. It is perhaps surprising to argue that an employed population could be enticed to move, but an explanation lies in the labor conditions then prevalent in the South.
About thirty-five percent of the urban black population in the South was engaged in skilled trades. Some were from the old artisan class of slavery—blacksmiths, masons, carpenters—which had had a monopoly of certain trades, but they were gradually being pushed out by competition, mechanization, and obsolescence. The remaining sixty-five percent, more recently urbanized, worked in newly developed industries—tobacco, lumber, coal and iron manufacture, and railroads. Wages in the South, however, were low, and black workers were aware, through labor recruiters and the black press, that they could earn more even as unskilled workers in the North than they could as artisans in the South. After the boll weevil infestation, urban black workers faced competition from the continuing influx of both black and white rural workers, who were driven to undercut the wages formerly paid for industrial jobs. Thus, a move north would be seen as advantageous to a group that was already urbanized and steadily employed, and the easy conclusion tying their subsequent economic problems in the North to their rural background comes into question.
In the passage, the author anticipates which of the following as a possible objection to her argument?
第二段最后说明作者认为“有工作的人还会被吸引到其他地方”的观点会让人感到奇怪，因此，其他人的反对意见便是“有工作的人群一般不会再被吸引到其他地方去”，只有选项C表达了相应的意思，其它选项的内容文章均没有提到当前版本由 703313krfq 更新于2021-04-17 12:31:56 感谢由 703313krfq 对此题目的解答所做出的贡献。
employed population=steady jobs perhaps=likely not=surprisingly
C选项对应原句“it is perhaps surprising to argue that an employed population could be enticed to move”，作者自己都在说“整个受雇佣的人口能够因为吸引而整体迁移是一件很惊讶的事”，随即自己又下一段给出了整体的解释。
In the passage, the author anticipates which of the following as a possible objection to her argument? 作者预测下面哪个选项会反对她的观点？（题干都没读懂啊。。。） anticipates预测 objection反对；缺点
做题时看到 possible objection的时候就去找“让步”的地方，但是发现都没有相契合的。。 实际上是有的，文中的让步有两处： 看到第一个让步1：虽然有文件记录但是【让步=潜在的反对】文件记录并不可靠=但是不确定是不是同一批人迁移的 看到第二个让步2：有可能很惊讶不知道是什么东西引诱他们进行迁移。【让步=潜在的反对】但是肯定有另外的原因导致他迁移=南部普遍的工作条件引诱他们迁移 第二个是首段结尾的一个让步，转折之后引出 an explaination lies in xxx ; 之后第三段整段都是说这个explaination； 用于反驳之前那个让步【可能的objection】
要对 原文中 的语气转折 之类 很敏感
It is perhaps surprising to argue that an employed population could be enticed to move, but an explanation lies in the labor conditions then prevalent in the South. 考这种题目真的是太过分了。。这么长的阅读。。这个细节第一遍读的时候没注意到的话，回文定位很难在2分钟之内解决。。。