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 suggests that the tragic hero's "original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy" (see lines 29–30,marked with highlight) primarily to
A:qualify the assertion that the theory of tragedy as a display of external fate is inconsistent
B:introduce the discussion of the theory that tragedy is the consequence of individual sin
C:refute the theory that the tragic process is more important than the tragic condition
D:support the claim that heroism creates the splendor and exhilaration of tragedy
E:distinguish between fate as conceived in ancient Greek tragedy and fate in more recent 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：
D:support the claim that heroism creates the splendor and exhilaration of tragedy
答案.D
题目大意：作者认为悲剧主人公的“最初的命运从未完全从悲剧中消失”（见第29-30行），主要是
在这句话之前，我们读到：正是英雄主义创造了悲剧所特有的辉煌和兴奋。悲剧不断地提醒我们，英雄本可以获得非凡的命运。这提醒观众，这个光荣的命运已经悲惨地失去了。因此，第一款最后一句有助于支持其前一句中的主张。
A.将悲剧理论作为外部命运的表现这一论断定性为不一致。没有任何迹象表明作者认为这一主张减轻了作者在第一次讨论的悲剧理论中所看到的缺陷。
B.介绍悲剧是个人罪过的结果这一理论的讨论。这一主张并没有引入对第二种理论的讨论，即创造对第二种理论的有意义的过渡。
C.驳斥悲剧过程比悲剧条件更重要的理论。这篇文章没有任何地方提到悲剧过程比悲剧条件更重要的理论；作者认为两者都是悲剧所固有的。
D.支持英雄主义创造悲剧的辉煌和欢乐的说法。正确。上下文表明是为了支持在其前面的句子中所表达的主张。
E.区分古希腊悲剧中的命运与近代悲剧中的命运。这篇文章没有提到古希腊悲剧和近代悲剧之间的区别。
题目大意：作者认为悲剧主人公的“最初的命运从未完全从悲剧中消失”（见第29-30行），主要是
在这句话之前，我们读到：正是英雄主义创造了悲剧所特有的辉煌和兴奋。悲剧不断地提醒我们，英雄本可以获得非凡的命运。这提醒观众，这个光荣的命运已经悲惨地失去了。因此，第一款最后一句有助于支持其前一句中的主张。
A.将悲剧理论作为外部命运的表现这一论断定性为不一致。没有任何迹象表明作者认为这一主张减轻了作者在第一次讨论的悲剧理论中所看到的缺陷。
B.介绍悲剧是个人罪过的结果这一理论的讨论。这一主张并没有引入对第二种理论的讨论，即创造对第二种理论的有意义的过渡。
C.驳斥悲剧过程比悲剧条件更重要的理论。这篇文章没有任何地方提到悲剧过程比悲剧条件更重要的理论；作者认为两者都是悲剧所固有的。
D.支持英雄主义创造悲剧的辉煌和欢乐的说法。正确。上下文表明是为了支持在其前面的句子中所表达的主张。
E.区分古希腊悲剧中的命运与近代悲剧中的命运。这篇文章没有提到古希腊悲剧和近代悲剧之间的区别。
加入收藏
在线答疑
题目来源
