清華大學（後西醫）
111年
英文
第 42 題
📖 題組：
Reading 4
In analyzing the representation of white ethnic groups, it has been customary to use a framework I term responsive pluralism, which emphasizes the response of political elites to newly mobilized political forces that are demanding recognition. A key tenet of responsive pluralism is that all votes are equal and fungible. In other words, political elites---those with power---will entertain the possibility of a coalition with any group that possesses votes. In return for these votes, the elites will make available a stream of public goods in the form of patronage, symbolic recognition, and social services.
But for minorities, the situation is more complex and considerably less flattering to America’s preferred conception of its political traditions. Simply put, minorities have often faced constraints on their participation in the American polity due to their social and legal status. This situation has resulted in what I term stratified pluralism. As members of racial or other categories, they have often been defined out of the realm of full citizenship as it is usually understood in a democracy.
Blacks in particular could not vote for a long time so candidacies for office were not feasible. It was not until the democratic rights of citizenship were formally recognized by the polity that racial minorities could even compete as players in the electoral arena. Moreover, racism further hampered minority advancement even after the vote had been granted. In some cases, white voters simply refused to vote for minority candidates; in others, the elites themselves made it clear that they wished to limit or prevent minority representation. Minority votes were considered less desirable than white votes, and they were therefore less fungible as a commodity to be exchanged for public goods. Minorities were often incorporated into a dominant coalition only if a race-oriented agenda was abandoned by the minority leaders. As a consequence of stratified pluralism, widespread and efficacious minority officeholding has been the exception rather than the rule in U.S. history.
A group trying to elect representatives to office must use the electoral process to convert its demographic raw materials into positions of authority in government: in effect, the group tries to translate numbers into power. There is nothing automatic or mechanical about this process of conversion. It is conditioned by at least five distinct factors, each of which can intervene to prevent a group from being represented in office in relation to its proportion of the population: enfranchisement, mobilization, spatial concentration, favorable districts, and coalitions.
Reading 4
In analyzing the representation of white ethnic groups, it has been customary to use a framework I term responsive pluralism, which emphasizes the response of political elites to newly mobilized political forces that are demanding recognition. A key tenet of responsive pluralism is that all votes are equal and fungible. In other words, political elites---those with power---will entertain the possibility of a coalition with any group that possesses votes. In return for these votes, the elites will make available a stream of public goods in the form of patronage, symbolic recognition, and social services.
But for minorities, the situation is more complex and considerably less flattering to America’s preferred conception of its political traditions. Simply put, minorities have often faced constraints on their participation in the American polity due to their social and legal status. This situation has resulted in what I term stratified pluralism. As members of racial or other categories, they have often been defined out of the realm of full citizenship as it is usually understood in a democracy.
Blacks in particular could not vote for a long time so candidacies for office were not feasible. It was not until the democratic rights of citizenship were formally recognized by the polity that racial minorities could even compete as players in the electoral arena. Moreover, racism further hampered minority advancement even after the vote had been granted. In some cases, white voters simply refused to vote for minority candidates; in others, the elites themselves made it clear that they wished to limit or prevent minority representation. Minority votes were considered less desirable than white votes, and they were therefore less fungible as a commodity to be exchanged for public goods. Minorities were often incorporated into a dominant coalition only if a race-oriented agenda was abandoned by the minority leaders. As a consequence of stratified pluralism, widespread and efficacious minority officeholding has been the exception rather than the rule in U.S. history.
A group trying to elect representatives to office must use the electoral process to convert its demographic raw materials into positions of authority in government: in effect, the group tries to translate numbers into power. There is nothing automatic or mechanical about this process of conversion. It is conditioned by at least five distinct factors, each of which can intervene to prevent a group from being represented in office in relation to its proportion of the population: enfranchisement, mobilization, spatial concentration, favorable districts, and coalitions.
Based upon the passage, with which of the following statements would the author most likely agree?
- A Responsive pluralism is a proper framework for an analysis of political representation in the United States
- B Minority advancement in officeholding has been hampered by stratified pluralism
- C Political elites have always been willing to form a coalition with any group possessive of votes
- D Even if the democratic rights of citizenship were not formally recognized by the polity, racial minorities were still able to compete as players in the electoral arena.
- E Ever since the democratic rights of citizenship were formally recognized by the polity, there have been widespread and efficacious minority officeholding.
思路引導 VIP
請試著比較文章第一段與第二、三段的轉折：作者認為用來分析白人族裔的政治框架，是否同樣適用於少數族裔？在第三段最後一句中，作者提到「階層化多元主義（stratified pluralism）」最終對少數族裔擔任公職造成了什麼樣的歷史結果？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
太棒了！你非常精準地抓住了作者在文中的核心立場，順利選出了正確答案 (B)，展現了很棒的閱讀分析能力。
核心概念對比：回應性多元主義 vs. 階層化多元主義
這篇文章透過對比兩種政治學框架來探討美國少數族裔的參政困境。第一段提到的「回應性多元主義（responsive pluralism）」僅適用於白人族裔，因此選項 (A) 與 (C) 過度推論為全體適用而錯誤。作者在第二、三段明確指出，少數族裔面臨的是「階層化多元主義（stratified pluralism）」的限制。即便獲得投票權，種族主義與政治菁英的排擠仍阻礙他們的發展（...hampered minority advancement），導致少數族裔在公職上的廣泛且有效代表性「只是例外而非慣例（the exception rather than the rule）」，這完全印證了 (B) 的敘述，同時也直接反駁了選項 (D) 與 (E) 的錯誤因果。
▼ 還有更多解析內容