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.
Which of the following comparisons of the tragic with the ironic hero is best supported by information contained in the passage?
A:A tragic hero's fate is an external condition, but an ironic hero's fate is an internal one.
B:A tragic hero must be controlled by fate, but an ironic hero cannot be.
C:A tragic hero's moral flaw surprises the audience, but an ironic hero's sin does not.
D:A tragic hero and an ironic hero cannot both be virtuous figures in the same tragedy.
E:A tragic hero is usually extraordinary, but an ironic hero may be cowardly or even villainous.
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：
E:A tragic hero is usually extraordinary, but an ironic hero may be cowardly or even villainous.
答案.E
题目大意：
以下哪一种对悲剧和讽刺英雄的比较最好地由文章中所包含的信息来支持？
请注意以下几点：首先，文章指出悲剧英雄的命运最初是内在的，但文章没有将此应用于讽刺英雄的命运。第二，这篇文章并不是说讽刺的英雄不能被命运控制。第三，这篇文章并没有把罪归咎于反讽英雄，但它确实表明反讽英雄的性格往往是不光彩的。
无论如何，这篇文章对于一个悲剧是否能表现出两个英雄，一个悲剧，另一个讽刺是沉默的。最后，这段话暗示，悲剧不像讽刺，需要一个特殊的中心人物。此外，文章还提出了以下关于讽刺英雄的观点：英雄越不光彩，讽刺就越尖锐。
A.悲剧英雄的命运是外在条件，讽刺英雄的命运是内在条件。文章指出悲剧主人公的命运最初是内在的，但作为悲剧过程的一部分而变得外在的。文章确实考虑了讽刺主人公是否能被命运控制，但也不排除这种可能性。因此，本文并不认为外在化的命运是区分悲剧英雄和讽刺英雄的一个因素。
B.悲剧英雄必须由命运控制，但讽刺英雄不能。文中没有任何东西表明一个讽刺的英雄不能被命运控制。
C.悲剧英雄的道德缺陷让观众感到惊讶，但讽刺英雄的罪恶却没有。这段话表明讽刺英雄的性格往往是不光彩的。然而，这并不意味着反讽英雄所犯的罪对反讽的发展至关重要。
D.悲剧英雄和讽刺英雄不可能都是同一悲剧中的道德人物。这篇文章并没有讨论一个悲剧是否可以有两个英雄，一个是悲剧的，一个是讽刺的。
E.悲剧英雄通常非同寻常，但讽刺英雄可能懦弱甚至恶毒。正确。在所提供的选择中，这种比较得到了最好的支持：悲剧需要一个特殊的中心人物，而讽刺的是，英雄越不光彩越好。
题目大意：
以下哪一种对悲剧和讽刺英雄的比较最好地由文章中所包含的信息来支持？
请注意以下几点：首先，文章指出悲剧英雄的命运最初是内在的，但文章没有将此应用于讽刺英雄的命运。第二，这篇文章并不是说讽刺的英雄不能被命运控制。第三，这篇文章并没有把罪归咎于反讽英雄，但它确实表明反讽英雄的性格往往是不光彩的。
无论如何，这篇文章对于一个悲剧是否能表现出两个英雄，一个悲剧，另一个讽刺是沉默的。最后，这段话暗示，悲剧不像讽刺，需要一个特殊的中心人物。此外，文章还提出了以下关于讽刺英雄的观点：英雄越不光彩，讽刺就越尖锐。
A.悲剧英雄的命运是外在条件，讽刺英雄的命运是内在条件。文章指出悲剧主人公的命运最初是内在的，但作为悲剧过程的一部分而变得外在的。文章确实考虑了讽刺主人公是否能被命运控制，但也不排除这种可能性。因此，本文并不认为外在化的命运是区分悲剧英雄和讽刺英雄的一个因素。
B.悲剧英雄必须由命运控制，但讽刺英雄不能。文中没有任何东西表明一个讽刺的英雄不能被命运控制。
C.悲剧英雄的道德缺陷让观众感到惊讶，但讽刺英雄的罪恶却没有。这段话表明讽刺英雄的性格往往是不光彩的。然而，这并不意味着反讽英雄所犯的罪对反讽的发展至关重要。
D.悲剧英雄和讽刺英雄不可能都是同一悲剧中的道德人物。这篇文章并没有讨论一个悲剧是否可以有两个英雄，一个是悲剧的，一个是讽刺的。
E.悲剧英雄通常非同寻常，但讽刺英雄可能懦弱甚至恶毒。正确。在所提供的选择中，这种比较得到了最好的支持：悲剧需要一个特殊的中心人物，而讽刺的是，英雄越不光彩越好。
加入收藏
在线答疑
题目来源
