题目信息
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 ofthat 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.
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
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 objects to the theory that all tragedy exhibits the workings of external fate primarily because
A:fate in tragedies is not as important a cause of action as is the violation of a moral law
B:fate in tragedies does not appear to be something that is external to the tragic hero until after the tragic process has begun
C:the theory is based solely on an understanding of ancient Greek tragedy
D:the theory does not seem to be a plausible explanation of tragedy's ability to exhilarate an audience
E:the theory does not seem applicable to the large number of tragedies in which the hero overcomes fate
参考答案及共享解析
共享解析来源为网络权威资源、GMAT高分考生等； 如有疑问，欢迎在评论区提问与讨论
本题耗时：
已选答案：
正确答案：
B:fate in tragedies does not appear to be something that is external to the tragic hero until after the tragic process has begun
答案.B
题目大意： 作者反对一切悲剧都表现为外部命运运作的理论的主要原因是什么？
这一观点在文章的第三句中归因于所考虑的两种理论中的第一种。作者认为这一观点过于简单化，主要是因为它混淆了悲剧状态和悲剧过程。也就是说，悲剧主人公与命运的关系随着悲剧过程的继续而变化：命运被用来平衡悲剧主人公的生活，随着悲剧主人公的生活变得不平衡而成为一种外在条件。
A.悲剧中的命运并不像违反道德法则那么重要。这一选择既没有提到悲剧的情况，也没有提到悲剧的过程。
B.悲剧中的命运在悲剧过程开始之前似乎不是悲剧主人公的外在事物。正确。这一选择提到了悲惨的过程，并准确地抓住了作者提出的理由，以支持提出的反对意见。
C.这个理论完全基于对古希腊悲剧的理解。作者援引古希腊悲剧来说明和支持所提出的反对意见；它并不是用来表明所反对的理论的缺陷。
D.这一理论似乎不能合理解释悲剧使观众振奋的能力。作者并没有把悲剧能使观众兴奋作为提出反对的主要原因。
E.这个理论似乎不适用于许多英雄战胜命运的悲剧。作者并没有把大量的英雄战胜命运的悲剧作为提出反对的主要原因。
题目大意： 作者反对一切悲剧都表现为外部命运运作的理论的主要原因是什么？
这一观点在文章的第三句中归因于所考虑的两种理论中的第一种。作者认为这一观点过于简单化，主要是因为它混淆了悲剧状态和悲剧过程。也就是说，悲剧主人公与命运的关系随着悲剧过程的继续而变化：命运被用来平衡悲剧主人公的生活，随着悲剧主人公的生活变得不平衡而成为一种外在条件。
A.悲剧中的命运并不像违反道德法则那么重要。这一选择既没有提到悲剧的情况，也没有提到悲剧的过程。
B.悲剧中的命运在悲剧过程开始之前似乎不是悲剧主人公的外在事物。正确。这一选择提到了悲惨的过程，并准确地抓住了作者提出的理由，以支持提出的反对意见。
C.这个理论完全基于对古希腊悲剧的理解。作者援引古希腊悲剧来说明和支持所提出的反对意见；它并不是用来表明所反对的理论的缺陷。
D.这一理论似乎不能合理解释悲剧使观众振奋的能力。作者并没有把悲剧能使观众兴奋作为提出反对的主要原因。
E.这个理论似乎不适用于许多英雄战胜命运的悲剧。作者并没有把大量的英雄战胜命运的悲剧作为提出反对的主要原因。
加入收藏
在线答疑
题目来源
