In "Two Brother of the Cheng", the older brother (the duke) never met his mother again because he was unwilling to break his own vow.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The statement under consideration is: In "Two Brother of the Cheng", the older brother (the duke) never met his mother again because he was unwilling to break his own vow.

Option 1: True. If we evaluate this claim at face value, we must check whether the text supports that the duke’s vow prevented any meeting with his mother, and that this was the sole or primary reason for never meeting her again. In many narratives, vows can influence decisions, but authors often provide additional factors (political constraints, danger, oath-breaking consequences, or palace protocols) that complicate whether a meeting could or could not happen. Without explicit textual confirmation that the vow directly and exclusively blocked a reunion with his mother, this option rests on a simplified causal link that may not hold. Thus, labeling the statement as true would require a clear textual passage asserting that the vow precisely caused the permanent separation, which is not universally guaranteed across retellings. A reader should look for concrete evidence tying the vow to a permanent breach in mother–son contact; otherwise the claim is unsubstantiated.

Option 2: False. Interpreting the statement as false means acknowledging that the text does not support the claim that the duke never met his mother again solely because of his vow. There are several possible readings that would make the statement inaccurate: the duke might have met his mother again despite the vow, or the vow might have prevented a meeting for reasons other than an absolute prohibition, or external circumstances (guardians, courtiers, or political danger) might have impeded a reunion without relying on vow-breaking as the root cause. Since the exact motivation and outcome are not presented as a straightforward one-cause, one-effect scenario in every telling, the assertion as stated is not necessarily correct.

To unpack the reasoning further, consider these angles:
- If the text explicitly ties the separation to a vow, then the claim could be more plausible; without that explicit link, the causal statement remains speculative.
- If there is a scene where the duke tries to see his mother but is thwarted by other factors (security, imperial decree, or family dynamics), the root cause would be different from the vow itself, contradicting the wording of the claim.
- Some retellings emphasize emotional or moral obligations surrounding vows, but they also show that humans sometimes bend or reinterpret vows under extreme circumstances, which would again challenge the absolute statement presented.

In summary, the claim's sufficiency hinges on a precise textual basis asserting that the vow alone prevented any reunion, which is not universally guaranteed across versions. Therefore, the statement is evaluated as false because the simple cause-and-effect relation is not robustly supported by consistent textual evidence across sources. It’s important to cross-check the exact version of the story you’re studying, since wording and plot details can differ between adaptations and translations.

In "Two Brother of the Cheng", the older brother (the duke) never met his mother again because he was unwilling to break his own vow. 判断题

类似问题

What was surprising about the cost of constructing 5-Star homes?

What is stated in the first paragraph?

Which of the following statements best summarises the writer’s perspective on sustainable building practices?

According to the writer, what role does education play in solving the housing crisis?

What is the main point that paragraph 1 is making?

Which of the following best represents the authors’ recommendation?

In paragraph 3, the authors claim:

According to the text:

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单