雷哥网GMAT>题库>GMAT难题300合集>阅读RC>18025
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.
The author suggests that the tragic hero’s “original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy” (see lines 29–30) primarily to
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.看到这一段,首先提及“正是英雄主义创造了悲剧所特有的辉煌和兴奋”,强调之前提及的讽刺剧中的英雄形象的不同。之后又提及,悲剧英雄通常有一个非同寻常的,通常是一个近乎神圣的,几乎可以把握的命运,而最初命运的荣耀永远不会从悲剧中消失。从语义上讲,这两句话是一个顺承的逻辑,后面一句话在解释前一句话,因此选D
好难啊,翻译成中文还是看不懂
文章逻辑图:层次一 ,作者整体观点: two theoris - acient/modern: contradictory, extreme views
层次二,第一个theory,悲剧展示了外部命运的运作。
1. 整体评价:but转折词引出——oversimplification,态度词。
2. 第一次反驳:confuse condition&process,没有考虑到外部命运是在悲剧情节开始发生时才出现。利用Greek的例子指出,只有命运被violate的时候 才会发挥其外部作用。
3. 第二次反驳:没有分辨悲剧和反讽;反讽不需要一个非凡的中心人物,但英雄主义却是悲剧独有的特点。
层次三,第二个theory,悲剧情节的出现must是由违反了道德法律(罪恶)而引起。——在这个层次,作者承认了虽然有一些英雄的人设是傲慢的;但这种傲慢只是灾难的一种沉淀剂。(就像喜剧的结尾通常是吝啬高贵的人物变得谦卑?其实最后一个观点没怎么理解)通过BUT也可以看出作者对于第二个观点持反驳态度。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
highlight部分定位层次二-3,irony部分:
A qualify the assertion that the theory of tragedy as a display of external fate is inconsistent(定位混淆理论:external fate,定位层次二-2)
B introduce the discussion of the theory that tragedy is the consequence of individual sin(定位混淆理论:定位层次三)
C refute the theory that the tragic process is more important than the tragic condition(无意义比较:文章并没有将tragic condition和process比较)
D support the claim that heroism creates the splendor and exhilaration of tragedy(正确)
E distinguish between fate as conceived in ancient Greek tragedy and fate in more recent tragedy(定位混淆理论:定位层次二-2)
科目:
阅读RC
来源:
GMAT难题300合集
1m31s
平均耗时
82.5%
平均正确率
该题由网友vQbBPD提供 上传GMAT题