There are two theories that have been used to explain ancient and modern tragedy. Neither quite explains the complexity of the t

admin2022-10-18  37

问题 There are two theories that have been used to explain ancient and modern tragedy. Neither quite explains the complexity of the tragic process or the tragic hero, but each explains important elements of tragedy, and, because their conclusions are contradictory, they represent extreme views. The first theory states that all tragedy exhibits the workings of external fate. Of course, the overwhelming majority of tragedies do leave us with a sense of the supremacy of impersonal power and of the limitation of human effort. But this theory of tragedy is an oversimplification, primarily because it confuses the tragic condition with the tragic process: the theory does not acknowledge that fate, in a tragedy, normally becomes external to the hero only after the tragic process has been set in motion. Fate, as conceived in ancient Greek tragedy, is the internal balancing condition of life. It appears as external only after it has been violated, just as justice is an internal quality of an honest person, but the external antagonist of the criminal. Secondarily, this theory of tragedy does not distinguish tragedy from irony. Irony does not need an exceptional central figure: as a rule, the more ignoble the hero the sharper the irony, when irony alone is the objective. It is heroism that creates the splendor and exhilaration that is unique to tragedy. The tragic hero normally has an extraordinary, often a nearly divine, destiny almost within grasp, and the glory of that original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy.
    The second theory of tragedy states that the act that sets the tragic process in motion must be primarily a violation of moral law, whether human or divine; in short, that the tragic hero must have a flaw that has an essential connection with sin. Again it is true that the great majority of tragic heroes do possess hubris, or a proud and passionate mind that seems to make the hero’s downfall morally explicable. But such hubris is only the precipitating agent of catastrophe, just as in comedy the cause of the happy ending is usually some act of humility, often performed by a noble character who is meanly disguised.  
In the author’s opinion, an act of humility in comedy is most analogous to

选项 A、a catastrophe in tragedy
B、an ironic action in tragedy
C、a tragic hero’s pride and passion
D、a tragic hero’s aversion to sin
E、a tragic hero’s pursuit of an unusual destiny

答案C

解析 What would the author regard as most analogous to an act of humility in comedy? ’The author writes that a proud and passionate mind is the precipitating agent of catastrophe, just as in comedy the cause of the happy ending is usually some act of humility. In other words, in tragedy, the hero’s hubris leads to his or her downfall.
A    A catastrophe is an external event rather than the quality of a character, whereas both hubris and humility are qualities of human characters.
B    Nowhere does the passage associate an ironic action in tragedy with an act of humility.
C    Correct. The author compares how hubris leads to catastrophe in tragedy with how an act of humility leads to a happy ending in comedy.
D    The author refers to how the second theory associates the tragic hero with sin. However, the author makes no reference to the tragic hero’s aversion to sin as analogous to an act of humility in comedy.
E    The author does not propose any similarity between the extraordinary aspiration of the tragic hero—that is, the hero’s unusual destiny—and an act of humility in comedy.
The correct answer is C.
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/EmdYFFFM
本试题收录于: GMAT VERBAL题库GMAT分类
0

最新回复(0)