楊向奎逵用三個標凖來評量乾嘉學術，這三個標準包括反理學、運用考據方法、具有政治思想。他認為以高郵王氏父子為代表的乾嘉學術只餘下考據方法一端。本文分別從災異、桓無王、六日七分、旁通、之正等漢代經學的重要課題，發掘王引之對漢代學術的批判，從而證明，他不反理學，卻以反漢學作為思想內容，再通過他對所存者神、和孝的論述，揭示他學術思想中的政治含意。在這個過程中，貫穿他這兩方面工作的是高明的文字訓詁方法，由此證明楊向奎的評價是錯誤的。

Yang Xiangkui asseses the ”philological studies in Qianlong and Jiaqing thrones” with three criterions. These criterions include the Contra-Theory of li (principles), the method of textual critique and the political intention. Yang minds that this ”philological studies in Qianlong and Jiaqing thrones” which wan represented through Wang Niansun the father and Wang Yinzhi the son of District Gan You reminds only the method of textual critique. In this paper we will discuss some important themes of Han Dynasty such as ”No King in Huan throne”, ”the theory about six days and genesis of the seven day in Yi Jung”, ”side connections”, ”to be just” etc. Through rediscovering Wang Yinzhi's critique at the philological works of Han Dynasty it well be proved: Wang Yingzhi was not againt the Theory of li (principles), but the Han philology. Furthermore, I welt through his discussions about spirit-preserving and filial piety to show up the political intention in his scholarly thinking. Under this process of working there is a brilliant philological method, and it therefore can be proved that Yang's assessment is wrong.