Colonial historian David Allen\'s intensive study of five communities in seventeenth-century Massachusetts is a model of meticulous scholarship on the detailed microcosmic level, and is convincing up to a point. Allen suggests that much more coherence and direct continuity existed between English and colonial agricultural practices and administrative organization than other historians have suggested. However, he overstates his case with the declaration that he has proved "the remarkable extent to which diversity in New England local institutions was directly imitative of regional differences in the mother country."
Such an assertion ignores critical differences between seventeenth-century England and New England. First, England was overcrowded and land-hungry; New England was sparsely populated and labor-hungry. Second, England suffered the normal European rate of mortality; New England, especially in the first generation of English colonists, was virtually free from infectious diseases. Third, England had an all-embracing state church; in New England membership in a church was restricted to the elect. Fourth, a high proportion of English villagers lived under paternalistic resident squires; no such class existed in New England. By narrowing his focus to village institutions and ignoring these critical differences, which studies by Greven, Demos, and Lockridge have shown to be so important, Allen has created a somewhat distorted picture of reality.
Allen\'s work is a rather extreme example of the "country community" school of seventeenth-century English history whose intemperate excesses in removing all national issues from the history of that period have been exposed by Professor Clive Holmes. What conclusion can be drawn, for example, from Allen\'s discovery that Puritan clergy who had come to the colonies from East Anglia were one-third to one-half as likely to return to England by 1660 as were Puritan ministers from western and northern England? We are not told in what way, if at all, this discovery illuminates historical understanding. Studies of local history have enormously expanded our horizons, but it is a mistake for their authors to conclude that village institutions are all that mattered, simply because their functions are all that the records of village institutions reveal.
文章概况：第一段开头说有一个家伙研究社区，这个家伙的研究还是比较考谱的。后面详细谈了一些研究的内容，大概围绕的农业和行政组织谈的，但后面又说他的这个研究有些不对劲的地方。第二段开始详细叙述有几个地方不对劲，一共列举了四点。而第三段开始说这个家伙的研究有哪些意义。
Question According to the passage, which of the following was true of most villages in seventeenth-century England?
(A) The resident squire had significant authority.
(B) Church members were selected on the basis of their social status within the community.
(C) Low population density restricted agricultural and economic growth.
(D) There was little diversity in local institutions from one region to another.
(E) National events had little impact on local customs and administrative organization.
文的是个细节，得看看十七世纪的英国村子在文章的什么地方。根据文章脉络，我们知道这个细节文章第二段的第四个缺点就说了，，我们读下这句：说大量的村民住在什么squire下我们来看看选项
A 反正和squire有点联系，先留着
B 教会成员根据社会地位来选，没提，杀
C 低人口密度抑制了农业和经济增长，没提，杀
D local institutions多样性不够，没提，杀
E 国家的事件对地方风俗和行政影响不大，没提，杀
Question The passage suggests that Professor Clive Holmes would most likely agree with which of the following statements?
(A) An understanding of seventeenth-century English local institutions requires a consideration of national issues.
(B) The "country community" school of seventeenth-century English history distorts historical evidence in order to establish continuity between old and new institutions.
(C) Most historians distort reality by focusing on national concerns to the exclusion of local concerns.
(D) National issues are best understood from the perspective of those at the local level.
(E) Local histories of seventeenth-century English villages have contributed little to the understanding of village life.
细节，找到那个教授的观点，应该在第三段首句，我们读一下：说的是这个教授研究了一些国家的issue(我只管这句话中对于教授观点的表述，其它对于问题没有用的信息尽量少看)，我们来看看选项。
A 理解一个东西需要national issue，和原文有点关系，留着
B 文章没提，杀
C没提，杀
D 好歹也和national issue有点关系，留着
E 没提，杀
A强调的是我需要national issue，D说 national issue从地方的角度能更好的理解，原文说的是 national issue对于那个研究的作用，哪个更好，显然是A，当然，A也不怎么样，但至少比D恶心程度轻多了。