All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
GMAT Exam  >  GMAT Questions  >  One often hears that biographies are autobiog... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
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 mentions Ron Chernow most probably in order to
  • a)
    provide a counterexample to a general claim about biography
  • b)
    illustrate a questionable assertion regarding biography
  • c)
    establish a favorable comparison with an established biographer
  • d)
    underscore the importance of research in biography
  • e)
     challenge a new approach to biography
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
One often hears that biographies are autobiographies, that the biograp...
This question concerns the context in which the author cites Ron Chernow in the first paragraph. The paragraph begins with the claim that “biographies are autobiographies.” However, that statement is followed by the phrase “on the contrary,” signaling that the subsequent mention of Chernow is intended to provide a counterexample to this claim.
(A) CORRECT. Chernow is cited as a counterexample to the general claim that “biographies are autobiographies.”
(B) The questionable assertion in the first paragraph is that “biographies are autobiographies.” However, the signal words “on the contrary” indicate that Chernow is not intended as an illustration of this assertion, but rather a counterexample.
(C) Chernow is the only biographer named in the passage, so the author never attempted to make a comparison between Chernow and any other established biographer.  
(D) The importance of research in biography is discussed in the second paragraph, while Chernow is cited in the first paragraph. Thus, it is likely that Chernow is cited for some other reason.
(E) The author is not challenging a new approach to biography; if anything, he is arguing that certain attitudes about biography are inaccurate. Chernow is cited to counter one such prevailing attitude.  
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
One often hears that biographies are autobiographies, that the biograp...
Explanation of the Correct Answer
The mention of Ron Chernow in the passage serves a specific purpose related to the general claims about biographers and their subjects. Here's a detailed breakdown:
Counterexample to General Claims
- The passage begins with the assertion that biographers often write about themselves through their subjects.
- Ron Chernow’s perspective challenges this notion by emphasizing that serious biographers confront “hard, uncomfortable facts.”
- By highlighting Chernow’s statement, the author illustrates that biographers can embrace unfamiliar and troubling aspects of their subjects rather than merely reflecting their own views or biases.
Reinforcement of Biographical Approach
- Chernow’s comment that biographers “like to stub their toes on hard, uncomfortable facts” supports the idea that depth and complexity in subjects are essential for a compelling biography.
- This reinforces the notion that effective biographies require more than personal affinity for the subject; they also depend on the richness of the subject's life and the challenges it presents.
Conclusion
- In essence, referencing Chernow serves to provide a counterexample to the general claim that biographers are self-referential and only choose subjects they inherently like.
- Instead, it illustrates that biographers, like Chernow, are motivated by the potential for insightful storytelling and understanding, regardless of their personal feelings towards the subject itself.
Thus, option 'A' is the correct answer as it effectively demonstrates a counterexample to the broader claim about the nature of biographies.
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

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.It can be inferred that the author makes which of the following assumptions about biographies?

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 with

The pronghorn, an antelope-like mammal that lives on the western plains of North America, is the continent’s fastest land animal, capable of running 90 kilometers per hour and of doing so for several (5) kilometers. Because no North American predator is nearly fast enough to chase it down, biologists have had difficulty explaining why the pronghorn developed its running prowess. One biologist, however, has recently claimed that pronghorns run as (10) fast as they do because of adaptation to predators known from fossil records to have been extinct for 10,000 years, such as American cheetahs and long- legged hyenas, either of which, it is believed, were fast enough to run down the pronghorn.(15) Like all explanations that posit what is called a relict behavior—a behavior that persists though its only evolutionary impetus comes from long-extinct environ- mental conditions—this one is likely to meet with skep- ticism. Most biologists distrust explanations positing relict (20) behaviors, in part because testing these hypotheses is so difficult due to the extinction of a principal component. They typically consider such historical explanations only when a lack of alternatives forces them to do so. But present-day observations sometimes yield (25) evidence that supports relict behavior hypotheses.In the case of the pronghorn, researchers have identified much supporting evidence, as several aspects of pronghorn behavior appear to have been shaped by enemies that no longer exist. For example, (30) pronghorns—like many other grazing animals—roam in herds, which allows more eyes to watch for predators and diminishes the chances of any particular animal being attacked but can also result in overcrowding and increased competition for food. But, since (35) pronghorns have nothing to fear from present-day carnivores and thus have nothing to gain from herding, their herding behavior appears to be another adaptation to extinct threats. Similarly, if speed and endurance were once essential to survival, researchers would (40) expect pronghorns to choose mates based on these athletic abilities, which they do—with female pronghorns, for example, choosing the victor after male pronghorns challenge each other in sprints and chases.Relict behaviors appear to occur in other animals (45) as well, increasing the general plausibility of such a theory. For example, one study reports relict behavior in stickleback fish belonging to populations that have long been free of a dangerous predator, the sculpin. In the study, when presented with sculpin, these (50) stickleback fish immediately engaged in stereotypical antisculpin behavior, avoiding its mouth and swimming behind to bite it. Another study found that ground squirrels from populations that have been free from snakes for 70,000 to 300,000 years still clearly recognize (55) rattlesnakes, displaying stereotypical antirattlesnake behavior in the presence of the snake. Such fear, however, apparently does not persist interminably. Arctic ground squirrels, free of snakes for about 3 million years, appear to be unable to recognize the (60) threat of a rattlesnake, exhibiting only disorganized caution even after being bitten repeatedly.Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?

Top Courses for GMATView all

Top Courses for GMAT

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 mentions Ron Chernow most probably in order toa)provide a counterexample to a general claim about biographyb)illustrate a questionable assertion regarding biographyc)establish a favorable comparison with an established biographerd)underscore the importance of research in biographye)challenge a new approach to biographyCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
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 mentions Ron Chernow most probably in order toa)provide a counterexample to a general claim about biographyb)illustrate a questionable assertion regarding biographyc)establish a favorable comparison with an established biographerd)underscore the importance of research in biographye)challenge a new approach to biographyCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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 mentions Ron Chernow most probably in order toa)provide a counterexample to a general claim about biographyb)illustrate a questionable assertion regarding biographyc)establish a favorable comparison with an established biographerd)underscore the importance of research in biographye)challenge a new approach to biographyCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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 mentions Ron Chernow most probably in order toa)provide a counterexample to a general claim about biographyb)illustrate a questionable assertion regarding biographyc)establish a favorable comparison with an established biographerd)underscore the importance of research in biographye)challenge a new approach to biographyCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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 mentions Ron Chernow most probably in order toa)provide a counterexample to a general claim about biographyb)illustrate a questionable assertion regarding biographyc)establish a favorable comparison with an established biographerd)underscore the importance of research in biographye)challenge a new approach to biographyCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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 mentions Ron Chernow most probably in order toa)provide a counterexample to a general claim about biographyb)illustrate a questionable assertion regarding biographyc)establish a favorable comparison with an established biographerd)underscore the importance of research in biographye)challenge a new approach to biographyCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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 mentions Ron Chernow most probably in order toa)provide a counterexample to a general claim about biographyb)illustrate a questionable assertion regarding biographyc)establish a favorable comparison with an established biographerd)underscore the importance of research in biographye)challenge a new approach to biographyCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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 mentions Ron Chernow most probably in order toa)provide a counterexample to a general claim about biographyb)illustrate a questionable assertion regarding biographyc)establish a favorable comparison with an established biographerd)underscore the importance of research in biographye)challenge a new approach to biographyCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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 mentions Ron Chernow most probably in order toa)provide a counterexample to a general claim about biographyb)illustrate a questionable assertion regarding biographyc)establish a favorable comparison with an established biographerd)underscore the importance of research in biographye)challenge a new approach to biographyCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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 mentions Ron Chernow most probably in order toa)provide a counterexample to a general claim about biographyb)illustrate a questionable assertion regarding biographyc)establish a favorable comparison with an established biographerd)underscore the importance of research in biographye)challenge a new approach to biographyCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Top Courses for GMAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup