Hello,
These are some passage-based questions, if anyone can help.
Question 1:
The following passages are all concerned with understanding human history. The passages were published between the middle of the nineteenth century through to the early twentieth century.
I
Modern history has rejected the beliefs of the ancients without replacing them by a new conception, and the logic of the situation has obliged the historians, after they had apparently rejected the divine authority of the kings and the ‘fate’ of the ancients, to reach the same conclusion by another road, that is, to recognize (1) nations guided by individual men, and (2) the existence of a known aim to which these nations and humanity at large are tending. In historical events (where the actions of 5 men are the subject of observation) the first and most primitive approximation to present itself was the will of the gods and, after that, the will of those who stood in the most prominent position – the heroes of history. But we need only penetrate to the essence of any historic event – which lies in the activity of the general mass of men who take part in it – to be convinced that the will of the historic hero does not control the actions of the mass but is itself continually controlled. 10
II
The thing itself is made present before us by an exercise of creative power as genuine as that of Nature herself ... whatever be the cause, the fact is so. Poetry has this life-giving power, and prose has it not; and thus the poet is the truest historian. Whatever is properly valuable in history the poet gives us – not events and names, but emotion, but action, but life. He is the heart of his age, and his verse expresses his age. 15
III
Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has originated! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the 20 commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power – they were more complete men (which at every point also implies the same as ‘more complete beasts’).
IV
If we are to draw any useful lines of demarcation in the continuous flux of history we must not scruple to say that, in the realm of knowledge and thought, modern history begins in the seventeenth century. Ubiquitous rebellion against tradition, a new standard of clear and precise thought which affects even literary expression, a flow of mathematical and physical discoveries so rapid that ten years added more to the sum of knowledge than all that had been added since the days of Archimedes, the introduction of organised co-operation to increase knowledge – characterise the opening of a new era.
1. Which passage is least concerned with the causes of history?
Someone please explain to me why the correct answer is Passage IV. I am thinking it’s Passage II because it’s the passage that talks about how a poet describes history. Passage IV says that modern history began with a “ubiquitous rebellion against tradition”; therefore it’s referring to the origins of modern history, and would likely define the origins of historical periodis by their separation from tradition. Why do they say it’s Passage IV then?
Question 2:
The Duchess of –– was there, escorting her young daughter, Lady Louisa. The Duchess caught sight of Mr. Brummell, and at once warned her daughter that if that gentleman near the door came and spoke to them she was to be careful to impress him favourably, ‘for’, and she sank her voice to a whisper, ‘he is the celebrated Mr. Brummell’. Lady Louisa might well have wondered why a Mr. Brummell was celebrated, and why a Duke’s daughter need take care to impress a Mr. Brummell. 5 And then, directly he began to move towards them, the reason of her mother’s warning became apparent. The grace of his carriage was so astonishing; his bows were so exquisite.
Everybody looked overdressed or badly dressed – some, indeed, looked positively dirty – beside him. His clothes seemed to melt into each other with the perfection of their cut and the quiet harmony of their colour. Without a single point of emphasis everything was distinguished – from his bow to the way 10 he opened his snuff-box, with his left hand invariably. He was the personification of freshness and cleanliness and order. One could well believe that he had his chair1 brought into his dressing-room and was deposited at Almack’s2 without letting a puff of wind disturb his curls or a spot of mud stain his shoes. When he actually spoke to her, Lady Louisa would be at first enchanted – no one was more agreeable, more amusing, had a manner that was more flattering and enticing – and then she 15 would be puzzled. It was quite possible that before the evening was out he would ask her to marry him, and yet his manner of doing it was such that the most ingenuous debutante could not believe
that he meant it seriously. His odd grey eyes seemed to contradict his lips; they had a look in them which made the sincerity of his compliments very doubtful. And then he said very cutting things about other people. They were not exactly witty; they were certainly not profound; but they were so 20 skilful, so adroit – they had a twist in them which made them slip into the mind and stay there when more important phrases were forgotten.
2. Lines 4 and 5 suggest that Louisa felt a little
A guilty.
B indignant.
C embarrassed.
D apprehensive.
Why isn’t the answer “apprehensive”? Her mother was warning her to be cautious, and she then wondered who could this person be that a Duke’s daughter would have to impress. Doesn’t that suggest apprehensiveness? Why is the correct answer “indignant”?
Question 3:
3. The image of the ‘chair’ (line 12) contributes to the portrayal of Brummell by introducing an element of
A absurdity.
B solemnity.
C informality.
D gentle humour
Please tell me how that is not “gentle humour”?
Question 4:
B. uncaring
C. fixated
D. blunt
Correct answer is C, but I thought it was B because the doctor doesn’t seem to be sympathetic to the death of the person just that he was able to deliver the appropriate professional advice. His lack of emotional reaction constitutes the adjective of "uncaring" no?
Question 5:
"Young British competitors today are too friendly, and this is affecting their chances of winning major championships. They are all too close, all the current generation are having lunch together and then going off to play for a million dollars.
In the past competitors had to win over and over again to become well known and create a future and a pension plan. These guys now have a future in a year. You can be a millionaire now in six months without even winning. They've got their own clothing lines, they advertise drinks and sportswear, and even have management companies guaranteeing them a signing-on fee for playing in a tournament. In the past it was necessary to play well just to be invited to top events. They started out with little or nothing and were lucky to receive £100 as expenses in one week. But look at what they achieved!"
5. Which of the following is a conclusion that can be drawn from the above passage?
A. The standard of play in Britain has declined over the years due to commitments outside the sport.
B. Nowadays, British players are more interested in money than players from other countries.
C. British players in the past were not on friendly terms with opponents.
D. Nowadays, players can make more money from appearances and outside commitments than they do from winning competitions.
E. Nowadays, it is much harder for British players to win a major championship due to commitments outside the sport.
I don’t see how D. is the correct answer. Nothing suggests players nowadays can make more money from other commitments than from competitions. In fact it says in the passage “They are all too close, all the current generation are having lunch together and then going off to play for a million dollars.” which suggests if they win they will make a million dollars.
I chose E. because it seems the players nowadays are less likely to win championships due to their commitments and in the passage it states “Young British competitors today are too friendly, and this is affecting their chances of winning major championships”
These are some passage-based questions, if anyone can help.
Question 1:
The following passages are all concerned with understanding human history. The passages were published between the middle of the nineteenth century through to the early twentieth century.
I
Modern history has rejected the beliefs of the ancients without replacing them by a new conception, and the logic of the situation has obliged the historians, after they had apparently rejected the divine authority of the kings and the ‘fate’ of the ancients, to reach the same conclusion by another road, that is, to recognize (1) nations guided by individual men, and (2) the existence of a known aim to which these nations and humanity at large are tending. In historical events (where the actions of 5 men are the subject of observation) the first and most primitive approximation to present itself was the will of the gods and, after that, the will of those who stood in the most prominent position – the heroes of history. But we need only penetrate to the essence of any historic event – which lies in the activity of the general mass of men who take part in it – to be convinced that the will of the historic hero does not control the actions of the mass but is itself continually controlled. 10
II
The thing itself is made present before us by an exercise of creative power as genuine as that of Nature herself ... whatever be the cause, the fact is so. Poetry has this life-giving power, and prose has it not; and thus the poet is the truest historian. Whatever is properly valuable in history the poet gives us – not events and names, but emotion, but action, but life. He is the heart of his age, and his verse expresses his age. 15
III
Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has originated! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the 20 commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power – they were more complete men (which at every point also implies the same as ‘more complete beasts’).
IV
If we are to draw any useful lines of demarcation in the continuous flux of history we must not scruple to say that, in the realm of knowledge and thought, modern history begins in the seventeenth century. Ubiquitous rebellion against tradition, a new standard of clear and precise thought which affects even literary expression, a flow of mathematical and physical discoveries so rapid that ten years added more to the sum of knowledge than all that had been added since the days of Archimedes, the introduction of organised co-operation to increase knowledge – characterise the opening of a new era.
1. Which passage is least concerned with the causes of history?
Someone please explain to me why the correct answer is Passage IV. I am thinking it’s Passage II because it’s the passage that talks about how a poet describes history. Passage IV says that modern history began with a “ubiquitous rebellion against tradition”; therefore it’s referring to the origins of modern history, and would likely define the origins of historical periodis by their separation from tradition. Why do they say it’s Passage IV then?
Question 2:
The Duchess of –– was there, escorting her young daughter, Lady Louisa. The Duchess caught sight of Mr. Brummell, and at once warned her daughter that if that gentleman near the door came and spoke to them she was to be careful to impress him favourably, ‘for’, and she sank her voice to a whisper, ‘he is the celebrated Mr. Brummell’. Lady Louisa might well have wondered why a Mr. Brummell was celebrated, and why a Duke’s daughter need take care to impress a Mr. Brummell. 5 And then, directly he began to move towards them, the reason of her mother’s warning became apparent. The grace of his carriage was so astonishing; his bows were so exquisite.
Everybody looked overdressed or badly dressed – some, indeed, looked positively dirty – beside him. His clothes seemed to melt into each other with the perfection of their cut and the quiet harmony of their colour. Without a single point of emphasis everything was distinguished – from his bow to the way 10 he opened his snuff-box, with his left hand invariably. He was the personification of freshness and cleanliness and order. One could well believe that he had his chair1 brought into his dressing-room and was deposited at Almack’s2 without letting a puff of wind disturb his curls or a spot of mud stain his shoes. When he actually spoke to her, Lady Louisa would be at first enchanted – no one was more agreeable, more amusing, had a manner that was more flattering and enticing – and then she 15 would be puzzled. It was quite possible that before the evening was out he would ask her to marry him, and yet his manner of doing it was such that the most ingenuous debutante could not believe
that he meant it seriously. His odd grey eyes seemed to contradict his lips; they had a look in them which made the sincerity of his compliments very doubtful. And then he said very cutting things about other people. They were not exactly witty; they were certainly not profound; but they were so 20 skilful, so adroit – they had a twist in them which made them slip into the mind and stay there when more important phrases were forgotten.
- 1 chair: sedan-chair, carried by porters
- 2 Almack’s: a ‘social club’ for persons of fashion
2. Lines 4 and 5 suggest that Louisa felt a little
A guilty.
B indignant.
C embarrassed.
D apprehensive.
Why isn’t the answer “apprehensive”? Her mother was warning her to be cautious, and she then wondered who could this person be that a Duke’s daughter would have to impress. Doesn’t that suggest apprehensiveness? Why is the correct answer “indignant”?
Question 3:
3. The image of the ‘chair’ (line 12) contributes to the portrayal of Brummell by introducing an element of
A absurdity.
B solemnity.
C informality.
D gentle humour
Please tell me how that is not “gentle humour”?
Question 4:
- The joke in the cartoon is that the doctor is
B. uncaring
C. fixated
D. blunt
Correct answer is C, but I thought it was B because the doctor doesn’t seem to be sympathetic to the death of the person just that he was able to deliver the appropriate professional advice. His lack of emotional reaction constitutes the adjective of "uncaring" no?
Question 5:
"Young British competitors today are too friendly, and this is affecting their chances of winning major championships. They are all too close, all the current generation are having lunch together and then going off to play for a million dollars.
In the past competitors had to win over and over again to become well known and create a future and a pension plan. These guys now have a future in a year. You can be a millionaire now in six months without even winning. They've got their own clothing lines, they advertise drinks and sportswear, and even have management companies guaranteeing them a signing-on fee for playing in a tournament. In the past it was necessary to play well just to be invited to top events. They started out with little or nothing and were lucky to receive £100 as expenses in one week. But look at what they achieved!"
5. Which of the following is a conclusion that can be drawn from the above passage?
A. The standard of play in Britain has declined over the years due to commitments outside the sport.
B. Nowadays, British players are more interested in money than players from other countries.
C. British players in the past were not on friendly terms with opponents.
D. Nowadays, players can make more money from appearances and outside commitments than they do from winning competitions.
E. Nowadays, it is much harder for British players to win a major championship due to commitments outside the sport.
I don’t see how D. is the correct answer. Nothing suggests players nowadays can make more money from other commitments than from competitions. In fact it says in the passage “They are all too close, all the current generation are having lunch together and then going off to play for a million dollars.” which suggests if they win they will make a million dollars.
I chose E. because it seems the players nowadays are less likely to win championships due to their commitments and in the passage it states “Young British competitors today are too friendly, and this is affecting their chances of winning major championships”