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.
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:a tragic hero's pride and passion
200.C
题目大意
在作者看来，喜剧中的谦卑行为最类似于
作者认为什么最类似于喜剧中的谦卑行为？作者写道，一个骄傲和热情的头脑是灾难的沉淀剂，就像喜剧一样，幸福结局的原因通常是一些谦逊的行为。换句话说，在悲剧中，主人公的傲慢导致了他或她的垮台。
A.悲剧中的灾难。灾难是一个外部事件，而不是一个人物的品质，而傲慢和谦卑都是人类的品质。
B.悲剧中的讽刺动作。这段经文没有把悲剧中的讽刺行为与谦卑行为联系起来。
C.悲剧英雄的骄傲和激情。正确。作者将傲慢如何导致悲剧中的灾难与谦卑行为如何导致喜剧中的幸福结局进行了比较。
D.悲剧英雄对罪恶的厌恶。作者指的是第二种理论如何将悲剧英雄与罪恶联系起来。然而，作者并没有将悲剧主人公对罪恶的厌恶比作喜剧中的谦卑行为。
E.悲剧英雄追求不寻常的命运。作者认为悲剧主人公的非凡抱负，即主人公的非同寻常的命运，与喜剧中的谦卑行为并无相似之处
题目大意
在作者看来，喜剧中的谦卑行为最类似于
作者认为什么最类似于喜剧中的谦卑行为？作者写道，一个骄傲和热情的头脑是灾难的沉淀剂，就像喜剧一样，幸福结局的原因通常是一些谦逊的行为。换句话说，在悲剧中，主人公的傲慢导致了他或她的垮台。
A.悲剧中的灾难。灾难是一个外部事件，而不是一个人物的品质，而傲慢和谦卑都是人类的品质。
B.悲剧中的讽刺动作。这段经文没有把悲剧中的讽刺行为与谦卑行为联系起来。
C.悲剧英雄的骄傲和激情。正确。作者将傲慢如何导致悲剧中的灾难与谦卑行为如何导致喜剧中的幸福结局进行了比较。
D.悲剧英雄对罪恶的厌恶。作者指的是第二种理论如何将悲剧英雄与罪恶联系起来。然而，作者并没有将悲剧主人公对罪恶的厌恶比作喜剧中的谦卑行为。
E.悲剧英雄追求不寻常的命运。作者认为悲剧主人公的非凡抱负，即主人公的非同寻常的命运，与喜剧中的谦卑行为并无相似之处
加入收藏
在线答疑
题目来源
