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 contrasts an honest person and a criminal (see lines 19–21,underlined) primarily to
A:prove that fate cannot be external to the tragic hero
B:establish a criterion that allows a distinction to be made between irony and tragedy
C:develop the distinction between the tragic condition and the tragic process
D:introduce the concept of sin as the cause of tragic action
E:argue that the theme of omnipotent external fate is shared by comedy and tragedy
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：
C:develop the distinction between the tragic condition and the tragic process
答案.C
题目大意：作者对比一个诚实的人和一个罪犯 ，目的是：
作者为什么把诚实的人和罪犯作比较？在讨论两种悲剧理论中的第一种时，出现了这种对比；特别是，引入这种对比是为了质疑悲剧主人公的命运是否必然是外在的。作者认为，在古希腊悲剧中，命运最初是生命的内在平衡状态，但一旦悲剧过程被释放出来，命运就变成了外在的。悲剧的过程始于理论违背这种内在平衡，最终导致悲剧的发生。
从这个角度看，悲剧过程中的命运既是内在的，又是外在的。把“罪”归于悲剧主人公，只涉及对第二种悲剧理论的讨论。注意，在诚实的人和罪犯之间的对比中，没有提到喜剧。
A.证明命运不可能在悲剧英雄之外。文章认为，在古希腊悲剧中，命运可以是外在的，也可以是内在的。
B.建立一个标准，允许在反讽和悲剧之间进行区分。悲剧与反讽的区别是作为对第一个悲剧理论的批判而提出的；它不是从前面关于命运的讨论中得出的。
C.区分悲剧状态和悲剧过程。正确。如上所述，命运的内在形式和外在形式之间的对比是为了区分悲剧过程本身和作为悲剧过程结果的悲剧条件。
D.引入罪的概念作为悲剧行为的起因。只有在第二种悲剧理论的讨论中，才将“罪”归于悲剧英雄人物，因此与上述的对比并不相关。
E.认为喜剧与悲剧共有无所不能的外部命运主题。虽然这篇文章简短地提到了喜剧，但它与所提到的对比并不相关。
题目大意：作者对比一个诚实的人和一个罪犯 ，目的是：
作者为什么把诚实的人和罪犯作比较？在讨论两种悲剧理论中的第一种时，出现了这种对比；特别是，引入这种对比是为了质疑悲剧主人公的命运是否必然是外在的。作者认为，在古希腊悲剧中，命运最初是生命的内在平衡状态，但一旦悲剧过程被释放出来，命运就变成了外在的。悲剧的过程始于理论违背这种内在平衡，最终导致悲剧的发生。
从这个角度看，悲剧过程中的命运既是内在的，又是外在的。把“罪”归于悲剧主人公，只涉及对第二种悲剧理论的讨论。注意，在诚实的人和罪犯之间的对比中，没有提到喜剧。
A.证明命运不可能在悲剧英雄之外。文章认为，在古希腊悲剧中，命运可以是外在的，也可以是内在的。
B.建立一个标准，允许在反讽和悲剧之间进行区分。悲剧与反讽的区别是作为对第一个悲剧理论的批判而提出的；它不是从前面关于命运的讨论中得出的。
C.区分悲剧状态和悲剧过程。正确。如上所述，命运的内在形式和外在形式之间的对比是为了区分悲剧过程本身和作为悲剧过程结果的悲剧条件。
D.引入罪的概念作为悲剧行为的起因。只有在第二种悲剧理论的讨论中，才将“罪”归于悲剧英雄人物，因此与上述的对比并不相关。
E.认为喜剧与悲剧共有无所不能的外部命运主题。虽然这篇文章简短地提到了喜剧，但它与所提到的对比并不相关。
加入收藏
在线答疑
题目来源
