雷哥网GMAT>题库>GMAT难题300合集>阅读RC>18023
建议使用官方纸质指南,查看对照完整题目
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.
Which of the following comparisons of the tragic with the ironic hero is best supported by information contained in the passage?
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, 可以定位到这一段中,几乎是原句
尼玛啊我选了D!// D选项:A tragic hero and an ironic hero cannot both be virtuous figures in the same tragedy. 悲剧英雄和讽刺英雄不可能在同一场悲剧中都是有良好品德的人物。现在想想,文章又跟你说in the same tragedy去比较吗?又又脑补!文章直接就是tragic hero和ironic hero两种hero整体的比较!而且你不觉得这个选项有毛病吗?如果你选这个选项就是在说ironic hero如果跟tragic hero不在同一个tragedy里面,那ironic hero就可以是有virtuous figures了,这明显就不对啊,文章就是在说人家ironic hero整体都是ignoble的相反面的好吧!// E选项:A tragic hero is usually extraordinary, but an ironic hero may be cowardly or even villainous. 悲剧英雄通常是非凡的,但讽刺英雄可能是懦弱的,甚至是恶棍。由原文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.这里可以看出ironic hero是tragic hero的相反面。
????没人?
科目:
阅读RC
来源:
GMAT难题300合集
2m11s
平均耗时
76.4%
平均正确率
该题由网友Ejwe7w提供 上传GMAT题