『新东方在线托福阅读』为托福考生准备了ETS托福TPO/Official 14 Passage 3阅读练习：According to paragraph 3, the great mobility and range of pastoral societies have caused a debate as to真题题目及答案解析，TPO/Official 14 Passage 3阅读原文范文音频翻译

托福TPO/Official 14 Passage 3阅读原文According to paragraph 3, the great mobility and range of pastoral societies have caused a debate as to题目答案及解析-新东方托福官方网校手机版

游牧是一种主要以牲畜为经济活动基础的生活方式。

Pastoralism is a lifestyle in which economic activity is based primarily on livestock.

考古证据显示，在公元前3000年甚至更早的时候，位于欧亚大陆腹地的大草原上已出现一些会主导这片区域历史长达数千年的独特的游牧类型。

Archaeological evidence suggests that by 3000 B.C., and perhaps even earlier, there had emerged on the steppes of Inner Eurasia the distinctive types of pastoralism that were to dominate the region’s history for several millennia.

虽然绵羊、山羊和牛在这里也扮演了重要角色，但是马已经在很多地区成为受人尊重的动物。

Here, the horse was already becoming the animal of prestige in many regions, though sheep, goats, and cattle could also play a vital role.

正是马在运输和战争中的使用解释了为何欧亚大陆腹地的游牧被证实在所有游牧形式中最为机动且最具军事意义的。

It is the use of horses for transportation and warfare that explains why Inner Eurasian pastoralism proved the most mobile and the most militaristic of all major forms of pastoralism.

游牧的出现和传播对欧亚大陆腹地的历史具有深远的影响，同时，也间接影响了该地区之外部分亚洲和欧洲地区。

The emergence and spread of pastoralism had a profound impact on the history of Inner Eurasia, and also, indirectly, on the parts of Asia and Europe just outside this area.

特别的是，游牧青睐一种机动性的生活方式，这种机动性有助于解释游牧社会对这部分世界的影响。

In particular, pastoralism favors a mobile lifestyle, and this mobility helps to explain the impact of pastoralist societies on this part of the world.

游牧社会的机动性反映了他们依赖于以动物为基础的食物。

The mobility of pastoralist societies reflects their dependence on animal-based foods.

农民依靠栽培植物，而牧民则依赖家畜驯养。

While agriculturalists rely on domesticated plants, pastoralists rely on domesticated animals.

因此，牧民通常和食肉动物一样，在食物链中占据一个更高的位置。

As a result, pastoralists, like carnivores in general, occupy a higher position on the food chain.

在其他条件相同的情况下，这就意味着他们必须比农民开拓更大面积的土地来获取等量的食物、衣服以及其他生活必需品。

All else being equal, this means they must exploit larger areas of land than do agriculturalists to secure the same amount of food, clothing, and other necessities.

游牧因此是一种比农业更为广阔的生活方式。

So pastoralism is a more extensive lifeway than farming is.

然而，一个群体所占用的地域越大，留在一个地方并开发这片地域的难度也就越大。

However, the larger the terrain used to support a group, the harder it is to exploit that terrain while remaining in one place.

因此，基本的生态学原理暗示出游牧生活方式向游牧主义（一种机动性的生活方式）转变的强烈趋势。

So, basic ecological principles imply a strong tendency within pastoralist lifeways toward nomadism (a mobile lifestyle).

正如考古学家罗杰·克里布所指出的，“游牧的程度越深，向游牧主义转变的趋势就越强烈。”

As the archaeologist Roger Cribb puts it, “The greater the degree of pastoralism, the stronger the tendency toward nomadism.”

一位接受克里布采访的现代土耳其牧民表示：“拥有的牲畜越多，要去的地方就越远。”

A modern Turkic nomad interviewed by Cribb commented: “The more animals you have, the farther you have to move.”

它意味着游牧社会占据并能够影响非常大的区域。

It means that pastoralist societies occupy and can influence very large territories.

在欧亚大陆腹地大草原上所出现的以马为畜牧对象的游牧尤为明显，因为它在所有主要的游牧形式中的机动性最强。

This is particularly true of the horse pastoralism that emerged in the Inner Eurasian steppes, for this was the most mobile of all major forms of pastoralism.

因此，游牧社会所存在的较大地域里共享着相似的文化、生态甚至语言特点就并非偶然了。

So, it is no accident that with the appearance of pastoralist societies there appear large areas that share similar cultural, ecological, and even linguistic features.

公元前4000年后期，已经有证据显示存在着一个从东欧延伸到蒙古西部边境的大文化圈。

By the late fourth millennium B.C., there is already evidence of large culture zones reaching from Eastern Europe to the western borders of Mongolia.

也许在机动性方面最显著的标志就是公元前3000年生活在这片巨大区域的大部分牧民都讲与现代印欧语系相关的古老语言。

Perhaps the most striking sign of mobility is the fact that by the third millennium B.C., most pastoralists in this huge region spoke related languages ancestral to the modern Indo-European languages.

游牧社会具有卓越的机动性和活动范围，这在某种程度上解释了为何很多语言学家认为印欧语系能够以惊人的速度扩张并非是从安纳托利亚（如今的土耳其）的农民中传播开来的，而是来自早期欧亚大陆腹地的牧民之中。

The remarkable mobility and range of pastoral societies explain, in part, why so many linguists have argued that the Indo-European languages began their astonishing expansionist career not among farmers in Anatolia (present-day Turkey), but among early pastoralists from Inner Eurasia.

这些理论暗示了印欧语系不是从新石器时代（公元前10000年到公元前3000年）的安纳托利亚发展而来，而是从顿河和第聂伯河流域文化的觅食群体中发展而来的，他们开始从事家畜养殖并且着手开发邻近的大草原。

Such theories imply that the Indo-European languages evolved not in Neolithic (10,000 to 3,000 B.C.) Anatolia, but among the foraging communities of the cultures in the region of the Don and Dnieper rivers, which took up stock breeding and began to exploit the neighboring steppes.

游牧主义同样使牧民群体服从于可移动性的严格规则。

Nomadism also subjects pastoralist communities to strict rules of portability.

如果你不断四处奔波，就负担不起大量剩余材料的积累。

If you are constantly on the move, you cannot afford to accumulate large material surpluses.

这样的规则限制了牧民家庭积累物质财富的多样性（虽然他们也鼓励对价值高的便携物品如丝绸和珠宝的喜爱）。

Such rules limit variations in accumulated material goods between pastoralist households (though they may also encourage a taste for portable goods of high value such as silks or jewelry).

因此，总的来说，游牧主义意味着高度自给自足并且抑制了大范围劳动分工的出现。

So, by and large, nomadism implies a high degree of self-sufficiency and inhibits the appearance of an extensive division of labor.

当然存在财富和社会地位不平等，而且可能存在于大多数的游牧社会里，但是除了军事征战期间，他们通常由于微不足道而无法形成稳定的、世袭的阶层，通常能在“阶级”一词的使用中得到暗示。

Inequalities of wealth and rank certainly exist, and have probably existed in most pastoralist societies, but except in periods of military conquest, they are normally too slight to generate the stable, hereditary hierarchies that are usually implied by the use of the term class.

游牧社会里也同样存在性别上的不平等，但是由于大多数群体中缺少不合理的贫富等级制度，并且由于需要女性具有男性的大部分技能，通常包括军事技能，因此这种不公平已被弱化。

Inequalities of gender have also existed in pastoralist societies, but they seem to have been softened by the absence of steep hierarchies of wealth in most communities, and also by the requirement that women acquire most of the skills of men, including, often, their military skills.

The word “prestige” in the passage is closest in meaning to

According to paragraph 1, what made it possible for Inner Eurasian pastoralism to become the most mobile and militaristic form of pastoralism?

The word “profound” in the passage is closest in meaning to

In paragraph 2, why does the author contrast pastoralists with agriculturalists?

According to paragraph 2, pastoralists tend to

In paragraph 3, why does the author discuss languages spoken in the region spanning from Eastern Europe to the western borders of Mongolia?

The word “striking” in the passage is closest in meaning to

According to paragraph 3, the great mobility and range of pastoral societies have caused a debate as to

The word “exploit” in the passage is closest in meaning to

According to paragraph 4, the fact that pastoralist communities are subject to “strict rules of portability” encourages such communities to

According to paragraph 4, all of the following are true of social inequality in pastoralist societies EXCEPT:

Which of the sentences below best expresses the essential information in the highlighted sentence in the passage? Incorrect choices change the meaning in important ways or leave out essential information.

Look at the four squares  that indicate where the following sentence could be added to the passage. There is a good reason for this.  Where would the sentence best fit? Click on a square  to add the sentence to the p assage.

Directions: An introductory sentence for a brief summary of the passage is provided below. Complete the summary by selecting the THREE answer choices that express the most important ideas in the passage. Some sentences do not belong in the summary because they express ideas that are not presented in the passage or are minor ideas in the passage. This question is worth 2 points.

Pastoralism in Ancient Inner Eurasia Pastoralism is a lifestyle in which economic activity is based primarily on livestock. Archaeological evidence suggests that by 3000 B.C., and perhaps even earlier, there had emerged on the steppes of Inner Eurasia the distinctive types of pastoralism that were to dominate the region’s history for several millennia. Here, the horse was already becoming the animal of prestige in many regions, though sheep, goats, and cattle could also play a vital role. It is the use of horses for transportation and warfare that explains why Inner Eurasian pastoralism proved the most mobile and the most militaristic of all major forms of pastoralism. The emergence and spread of pastoralism had a profound impact on the history of Inner Eurasia, and also, indirectly, on the parts of Asia and Europe just outside this area. In particular, pastoralism favors a mobile lifestyle, and this mobility helps to explain the impact of pastoralist societies on this part of the world. The mobility of pastoralist societies reflects their dependence on animal-based foods. While agriculturalists rely on domesticated plants, pastoralists rely on domesticated animals. As a result, pastoralists, like carnivores in general, occupy a higher position on the food chain. All else being equal, this means they must exploit larger areas of land than do agriculturalists to secure the same amount of food, clothing, and other necessities. So pastoralism is a more extensive lifeway than farming is. However, the larger the terrain used to support a group, the harder it is to exploit that terrain while remaining in one place. So, basic ecological principles imply a strong tendency within pastoralist lifeways toward nomadism (a mobile lifestyle). As the archaeologist Roger Cribb puts it, “The greater the degree of pastoralism, the stronger the tendency toward nomadism.” A modern Turkic nomad interviewed by Cribb commented: “The more animals you have, the farther you have to move.” Nomadism has further consequences. It means that pastoralist societies occupy and can influence very large territories. This is particularly true of the horse pastoralism that emerged in the Inner Eurasian steppes, for this was the most mobile of all major forms of pastoralism. So, it is no accident that with the appearance of pastoralist societies there appear large areas that share similar cultural, ecological, and even linguistic features. By the late fourth millennium B.C., there is already evidence of large culture zones reaching from Eastern Europe to the western borders of Mongolia. Perhaps the most striking sign of mobility is the fact that by the third millennium B.C., most pastoralists in this huge region spoke related languages ancestral to the modern Indo-European languages. The remarkable mobility and range of pastoral societies explain, in part, why so many linguists have argued that the Indo-European languages began their astonishing expansionist career not among farmers in Anatolia (present-day Turkey), but among early pastoralists from Inner Eurasia. Such theories imply that the Indo-European languages evolved not in Neolithic (10,000 to 3,000 B.C.) Anatolia, but among the foraging communities of the cultures in the region of the Don and Dnieper rivers, which took up stock breeding and began to exploit the neighboring steppes. Nomadism also subjects pastoralist communities to strict rules of portability.  If you are constantly on the move, you cannot afford to accumulate large material surpluses.  Such rules limit variations in accumulated material goods between pastoralist households (though they may also encourage a taste for portable goods of high value such as silks or jewelry).  So, by and large, nomadism implies a high degree of self-sufficiency and inhibits the appearance of an extensive division of labor.  Inequalities of wealth and rank certainly exist, and have probably existed in most pastoralist societies, but except in periods of military conquest, they are normally too slight to generate the stable, hereditary hierarchies that are usually implied by the use of the term class. Inequalities of gender have also existed in pastoralist societies, but they seem to have been softened by the absence of steep hierarchies of wealth in most communities, and also by the requirement that women acquire most of the skills of men, including, often, their military skills.