Question Description
One often hears that biographies are autobiographies, that the biographer is always writing about himself. On the contrary, serious biographers seek and welcome the unfamiliar, however troublesome to account for. Ron Chernow, the author of rich biographies of the American businessmen J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, remarks that biographers “like to stub their toes on hard, uncomfortable facts strewn in their paths.” Such encounters with the unaccountable are opportunities for breaking out and breaking through, in new directions, to fresh understanding.One also often hears that biographers must like their subjects. That would of course rule out such vastly important subjects as Hitler or Stalin. In practice, the biographer must like the subject not as a person but as a subject. Some are good subjects for the author, some bad. And what makes one subject better than another for any particular biographer varies dramatically. Some of the reasons are purely practical. Does the subject need a biography? Are the materials available? How much time is needed? A biographer’s knowledge and ability also determine the choice. Great scientists are great subjects, but can one write about their achievements with insight and authority? Personal idiosyncrasies matter, too.Biographers tend to be attracted to subjects who display particular personality traits, whether they be ambition, cruelty, ingenuity, or any other characteristic that separates a potential subject from the multitudes.In choosing a subject, the biographer’s main question should be, “Can an effective book be made out of this person’s life?” Day after day for years, the biographer will try to untangle chronology, compress relationships without distorting them, and keep the main narrative clear while carrying forward several intricate strands of the subject’s life. What pushes most biographers on in this endeavor is not necessarily affection for the subject but the feeling that they are writing a good book.Q.The author is primarily concerned witha)persuading biographers to change their methodsb)refuting some common beliefs about a particular literary genrec)arguing against continued reform of a historical endeavord)refuting an outdated theory of a particular literary genree)describing the working methods of certain authorsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about One often hears that biographies are autobiographies, that the biographer is always writing about himself. On the contrary, serious biographers seek and welcome the unfamiliar, however troublesome to account for. Ron Chernow, the author of rich biographies of the American businessmen J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, remarks that biographers “like to stub their toes on hard, uncomfortable facts strewn in their paths.” Such encounters with the unaccountable are opportunities for breaking out and breaking through, in new directions, to fresh understanding.One also often hears that biographers must like their subjects. That would of course rule out such vastly important subjects as Hitler or Stalin. In practice, the biographer must like the subject not as a person but as a subject. Some are good subjects for the author, some bad. And what makes one subject better than another for any particular biographer varies dramatically. Some of the reasons are purely practical. Does the subject need a biography? Are the materials available? How much time is needed? A biographer’s knowledge and ability also determine the choice. Great scientists are great subjects, but can one write about their achievements with insight and authority? Personal idiosyncrasies matter, too.Biographers tend to be attracted to subjects who display particular personality traits, whether they be ambition, cruelty, ingenuity, or any other characteristic that separates a potential subject from the multitudes.In choosing a subject, the biographer’s main question should be, “Can an effective book be made out of this person’s life?” Day after day for years, the biographer will try to untangle chronology, compress relationships without distorting them, and keep the main narrative clear while carrying forward several intricate strands of the subject’s life. What pushes most biographers on in this endeavor is not necessarily affection for the subject but the feeling that they are writing a good book.Q.The author is primarily concerned witha)persuading biographers to change their methodsb)refuting some common beliefs about a particular literary genrec)arguing against continued reform of a historical endeavord)refuting an outdated theory of a particular literary genree)describing the working methods of certain authorsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for One often hears that biographies are autobiographies, that the biographer is always writing about himself. On the contrary, serious biographers seek and welcome the unfamiliar, however troublesome to account for. Ron Chernow, the author of rich biographies of the American businessmen J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, remarks that biographers “like to stub their toes on hard, uncomfortable facts strewn in their paths.” Such encounters with the unaccountable are opportunities for breaking out and breaking through, in new directions, to fresh understanding.One also often hears that biographers must like their subjects. That would of course rule out such vastly important subjects as Hitler or Stalin. In practice, the biographer must like the subject not as a person but as a subject. Some are good subjects for the author, some bad. And what makes one subject better than another for any particular biographer varies dramatically. Some of the reasons are purely practical. Does the subject need a biography? Are the materials available? How much time is needed? A biographer’s knowledge and ability also determine the choice. Great scientists are great subjects, but can one write about their achievements with insight and authority? Personal idiosyncrasies matter, too.Biographers tend to be attracted to subjects who display particular personality traits, whether they be ambition, cruelty, ingenuity, or any other characteristic that separates a potential subject from the multitudes.In choosing a subject, the biographer’s main question should be, “Can an effective book be made out of this person’s life?” Day after day for years, the biographer will try to untangle chronology, compress relationships without distorting them, and keep the main narrative clear while carrying forward several intricate strands of the subject’s life. What pushes most biographers on in this endeavor is not necessarily affection for the subject but the feeling that they are writing a good book.Q.The author is primarily concerned witha)persuading biographers to change their methodsb)refuting some common beliefs about a particular literary genrec)arguing against continued reform of a historical endeavord)refuting an outdated theory of a particular literary genree)describing the working methods of certain authorsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for One often hears that biographies are autobiographies, that the biographer is always writing about himself. On the contrary, serious biographers seek and welcome the unfamiliar, however troublesome to account for. Ron Chernow, the author of rich biographies of the American businessmen J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, remarks that biographers “like to stub their toes on hard, uncomfortable facts strewn in their paths.” Such encounters with the unaccountable are opportunities for breaking out and breaking through, in new directions, to fresh understanding.One also often hears that biographers must like their subjects. That would of course rule out such vastly important subjects as Hitler or Stalin. In practice, the biographer must like the subject not as a person but as a subject. Some are good subjects for the author, some bad. And what makes one subject better than another for any particular biographer varies dramatically. Some of the reasons are purely practical. Does the subject need a biography? Are the materials available? How much time is needed? A biographer’s knowledge and ability also determine the choice. Great scientists are great subjects, but can one write about their achievements with insight and authority? Personal idiosyncrasies matter, too.Biographers tend to be attracted to subjects who display particular personality traits, whether they be ambition, cruelty, ingenuity, or any other characteristic that separates a potential subject from the multitudes.In choosing a subject, the biographer’s main question should be, “Can an effective book be made out of this person’s life?” Day after day for years, the biographer will try to untangle chronology, compress relationships without distorting them, and keep the main narrative clear while carrying forward several intricate strands of the subject’s life. What pushes most biographers on in this endeavor is not necessarily affection for the subject but the feeling that they are writing a good book.Q.The author is primarily concerned witha)persuading biographers to change their methodsb)refuting some common beliefs about a particular literary genrec)arguing against continued reform of a historical endeavord)refuting an outdated theory of a particular literary genree)describing the working methods of certain authorsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of One often hears that biographies are autobiographies, that the biographer is always writing about himself. On the contrary, serious biographers seek and welcome the unfamiliar, however troublesome to account for. Ron Chernow, the author of rich biographies of the American businessmen J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, remarks that biographers “like to stub their toes on hard, uncomfortable facts strewn in their paths.” Such encounters with the unaccountable are opportunities for breaking out and breaking through, in new directions, to fresh understanding.One also often hears that biographers must like their subjects. That would of course rule out such vastly important subjects as Hitler or Stalin. In practice, the biographer must like the subject not as a person but as a subject. Some are good subjects for the author, some bad. And what makes one subject better than another for any particular biographer varies dramatically. Some of the reasons are purely practical. Does the subject need a biography? Are the materials available? How much time is needed? A biographer’s knowledge and ability also determine the choice. Great scientists are great subjects, but can one write about their achievements with insight and authority? Personal idiosyncrasies matter, too.Biographers tend to be attracted to subjects who display particular personality traits, whether they be ambition, cruelty, ingenuity, or any other characteristic that separates a potential subject from the multitudes.In choosing a subject, the biographer’s main question should be, “Can an effective book be made out of this person’s life?” Day after day for years, the biographer will try to untangle chronology, compress relationships without distorting them, and keep the main narrative clear while carrying forward several intricate strands of the subject’s life. What pushes most biographers on in this endeavor is not necessarily affection for the subject but the feeling that they are writing a good book.Q.The author is primarily concerned witha)persuading biographers to change their methodsb)refuting some common beliefs about a particular literary genrec)arguing against continued reform of a historical endeavord)refuting an outdated theory of a particular literary genree)describing the working methods of certain authorsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of One often hears that biographies are autobiographies, that the biographer is always writing about himself. On the contrary, serious biographers seek and welcome the unfamiliar, however troublesome to account for. Ron Chernow, the author of rich biographies of the American businessmen J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, remarks that biographers “like to stub their toes on hard, uncomfortable facts strewn in their paths.” Such encounters with the unaccountable are opportunities for breaking out and breaking through, in new directions, to fresh understanding.One also often hears that biographers must like their subjects. That would of course rule out such vastly important subjects as Hitler or Stalin. In practice, the biographer must like the subject not as a person but as a subject. Some are good subjects for the author, some bad. And what makes one subject better than another for any particular biographer varies dramatically. Some of the reasons are purely practical. Does the subject need a biography? Are the materials available? How much time is needed? A biographer’s knowledge and ability also determine the choice. Great scientists are great subjects, but can one write about their achievements with insight and authority? Personal idiosyncrasies matter, too.Biographers tend to be attracted to subjects who display particular personality traits, whether they be ambition, cruelty, ingenuity, or any other characteristic that separates a potential subject from the multitudes.In choosing a subject, the biographer’s main question should be, “Can an effective book be made out of this person’s life?” Day after day for years, the biographer will try to untangle chronology, compress relationships without distorting them, and keep the main narrative clear while carrying forward several intricate strands of the subject’s life. What pushes most biographers on in this endeavor is not necessarily affection for the subject but the feeling that they are writing a good book.Q.The author is primarily concerned witha)persuading biographers to change their methodsb)refuting some common beliefs about a particular literary genrec)arguing against continued reform of a historical endeavord)refuting an outdated theory of a particular literary genree)describing the working methods of certain authorsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for One often hears that biographies are autobiographies, that the biographer is always writing about himself. On the contrary, serious biographers seek and welcome the unfamiliar, however troublesome to account for. Ron Chernow, the author of rich biographies of the American businessmen J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, remarks that biographers “like to stub their toes on hard, uncomfortable facts strewn in their paths.” Such encounters with the unaccountable are opportunities for breaking out and breaking through, in new directions, to fresh understanding.One also often hears that biographers must like their subjects. That would of course rule out such vastly important subjects as Hitler or Stalin. In practice, the biographer must like the subject not as a person but as a subject. Some are good subjects for the author, some bad. And what makes one subject better than another for any particular biographer varies dramatically. Some of the reasons are purely practical. Does the subject need a biography? Are the materials available? How much time is needed? A biographer’s knowledge and ability also determine the choice. Great scientists are great subjects, but can one write about their achievements with insight and authority? Personal idiosyncrasies matter, too.Biographers tend to be attracted to subjects who display particular personality traits, whether they be ambition, cruelty, ingenuity, or any other characteristic that separates a potential subject from the multitudes.In choosing a subject, the biographer’s main question should be, “Can an effective book be made out of this person’s life?” Day after day for years, the biographer will try to untangle chronology, compress relationships without distorting them, and keep the main narrative clear while carrying forward several intricate strands of the subject’s life. What pushes most biographers on in this endeavor is not necessarily affection for the subject but the feeling that they are writing a good book.Q.The author is primarily concerned witha)persuading biographers to change their methodsb)refuting some common beliefs about a particular literary genrec)arguing against continued reform of a historical endeavord)refuting an outdated theory of a particular literary genree)describing the working methods of certain authorsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of One often hears that biographies are autobiographies, that the biographer is always writing about himself. On the contrary, serious biographers seek and welcome the unfamiliar, however troublesome to account for. Ron Chernow, the author of rich biographies of the American businessmen J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, remarks that biographers “like to stub their toes on hard, uncomfortable facts strewn in their paths.” Such encounters with the unaccountable are opportunities for breaking out and breaking through, in new directions, to fresh understanding.One also often hears that biographers must like their subjects. That would of course rule out such vastly important subjects as Hitler or Stalin. In practice, the biographer must like the subject not as a person but as a subject. Some are good subjects for the author, some bad. And what makes one subject better than another for any particular biographer varies dramatically. Some of the reasons are purely practical. Does the subject need a biography? Are the materials available? How much time is needed? A biographer’s knowledge and ability also determine the choice. Great scientists are great subjects, but can one write about their achievements with insight and authority? Personal idiosyncrasies matter, too.Biographers tend to be attracted to subjects who display particular personality traits, whether they be ambition, cruelty, ingenuity, or any other characteristic that separates a potential subject from the multitudes.In choosing a subject, the biographer’s main question should be, “Can an effective book be made out of this person’s life?” Day after day for years, the biographer will try to untangle chronology, compress relationships without distorting them, and keep the main narrative clear while carrying forward several intricate strands of the subject’s life. What pushes most biographers on in this endeavor is not necessarily affection for the subject but the feeling that they are writing a good book.Q.The author is primarily concerned witha)persuading biographers to change their methodsb)refuting some common beliefs about a particular literary genrec)arguing against continued reform of a historical endeavord)refuting an outdated theory of a particular literary genree)describing the working methods of certain authorsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice One often hears that biographies are autobiographies, that the biographer is always writing about himself. On the contrary, serious biographers seek and welcome the unfamiliar, however troublesome to account for. Ron Chernow, the author of rich biographies of the American businessmen J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, remarks that biographers “like to stub their toes on hard, uncomfortable facts strewn in their paths.” Such encounters with the unaccountable are opportunities for breaking out and breaking through, in new directions, to fresh understanding.One also often hears that biographers must like their subjects. That would of course rule out such vastly important subjects as Hitler or Stalin. In practice, the biographer must like the subject not as a person but as a subject. Some are good subjects for the author, some bad. And what makes one subject better than another for any particular biographer varies dramatically. Some of the reasons are purely practical. Does the subject need a biography? Are the materials available? How much time is needed? A biographer’s knowledge and ability also determine the choice. Great scientists are great subjects, but can one write about their achievements with insight and authority? Personal idiosyncrasies matter, too.Biographers tend to be attracted to subjects who display particular personality traits, whether they be ambition, cruelty, ingenuity, or any other characteristic that separates a potential subject from the multitudes.In choosing a subject, the biographer’s main question should be, “Can an effective book be made out of this person’s life?” Day after day for years, the biographer will try to untangle chronology, compress relationships without distorting them, and keep the main narrative clear while carrying forward several intricate strands of the subject’s life. What pushes most biographers on in this endeavor is not necessarily affection for the subject but the feeling that they are writing a good book.Q.The author is primarily concerned witha)persuading biographers to change their methodsb)refuting some common beliefs about a particular literary genrec)arguing against continued reform of a historical endeavord)refuting an outdated theory of a particular literary genree)describing the working methods of certain authorsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.