All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  Directions: The passage below is followed by ... Start Learning for Free
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
I believe that the world-wide acclaim given to The Diary of Anne Frank and to the play and movie based on her story cannot be explained unless we recognize in it our wish to forget the gas chambers, and our effort to do so by glorifying the ability to retreat into an extremely private, gentle. sensitive world, and there to cling as much as possible to what have been one's usual daily attitudes and activities, although surrounded by a maelstrom apt to engulf one at any moment.
The Frank family's attitude that life could be carried on as before may well have been what led to their destruction. By eulogizing how they lived in their hiding place while neglecting to examine first whether it was a reasonable or an effective choice, we are able to ignore the crucial lesson of their story- that such an attitude can be fatal in extreme circumstances.
While the Franks were making their preparations for going passively into hiding, thousands of other Jews in Holland (as elsewhere in Europe) were trying to escape to the free world, in order to survive and/or fight. Others who could not escape went underground - into hiding - each family member with, for example, a different gentile family. We gather from the diary, however, that the chief desire of the Frank family was to continue living as nearly as possible in the same fashion to which they had been accustomed in happier times.
Little Anne, too, wanted only to go on with life as usual, and what else could she have done but fall in with the pattern her parents created for her existence ? But hers was not a necessary fate, much less a heroic one: it was a terrible but also a senseless fate. Anne had a good chance to survive, as did many Jewish children in Holland. But she would have had to leave her parents and go live with a gentile Dutch family, posing as their own child, something her parents would have had to arrange for her.
Everyone who recognized the obvious knew that the hardest way to go underground was to do it as a family: to hide out together made detection by the SS most likely: and when detected, everybody was doomed. By hiding singly, even when one got caught, the others had a chance to survive. The Franks, with their excellent connections among gentile Dutch families, might well have been able to hide out singly, each with a different family. But instead, the main principle of their planning was continuing their beloved family life- an understandable desire, but highly unrealistic in those times. Choosing any other course would have meant not merely giving up living together but also realizing the lull measure of the danger to their lives.
But even given their wish not to separate, they failed to make appropriate preparations for what was likely to happen.
There is little doubt that the Franks, who were able to provide themselves with so much while arranging for going into hiding, and even while hiding, could have provided themselves with some weapons had they wished. Had they had a gun, Mr. Frank could have shot down at least one or two of the "green police" who came for them. There was no surplus of such police, and the loss of an SS with every Jew arrested would have noticeably hindered the functioning of the police state. The fate of the Franks wouldn't have been very different, because they all died anyway except for Anne's father. But they could have sold their lives for a high price, instead walking to their death.
An entirely different matter would have been planning for escape in case of discovery. The Franks hiding place had only one entrance: it did not have any other exit. Despite the fact, during their many months of hiding, they did not try to devise one. Nor did they make other plans for escape.
Q. The author cites the example of the book "Diary of Anne Frank" to demonstrate that
  • a)
    the nature of the camps was murderous, but not personality destructive
  • b)
    the hiding place was an effective choice
  • c)
    the Frank family could have done much better to save themselves than they did
  • d)
    in those days, human oppression was at its nadir
  • e)
    life goes on and even blossoms under the greatest adversity
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CAT doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its c...
Explanation:

E. Life goes on and even blossoms under the greatest adversity
- The author uses the example of "The Diary of Anne Frank" to highlight the human ability to find solace and strength in the midst of extreme adversity.
- Despite the tragic circumstances the Franks faced, they attempted to maintain a sense of normalcy and routine in their hiding place.
- The portrayal of Anne's desire to continue living as usual, and the family's wish to preserve their family life, showcases a resilient spirit that persists even in the face of grave danger.
- The author suggests that by focusing on the Franks' determination to carry on with life in hiding, the public may be overlooking the harsh realities of the Holocaust, such as the need for strategic planning and survival tactics.
- The Franks' story serves as a reminder that even in the darkest times, individuals can find moments of beauty, connection, and hope, as evidenced by Anne's diary entries that capture her innermost thoughts and feelings.
In conclusion, the example of the Frank family's experiences in hiding underscores the profound resilience of the human spirit and the ability to find moments of light and positivity even in the most challenging of circumstances.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions : Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Nihilism is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history.In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with antifoundationalism.It has been over a century now since Nietzsche explored nihilism and its implications for civilization. As he predicted, nihilisms impact on the culture and values of the 20th century has been pervasive, its apocalyptic tenor spawning a mood of gloom and a good deal of anxiety and terror. Interestingly, Nietzsche himself, a radical skeptic preoccupied with language, knowledge, and truth, anticipated many of the themes of postmodernity. Its helpful to note, then, that he believed we could--at a terrible price--eventually work through nihilism. I am sure if we survived the process of destroying all interpretations of the world, we could then perhaps discover the correct course for humankind.For Nietzsche, there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. Penetrating the façades buttressing convictions, the nihilist discovers that all values are baseless and that reason is impotent. "Every belief, every considering something-true," Nietzsche writes, "is necessarily false because there is simply no true world" (Will to Power [notes from 1883-1888]). For him, nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all imposed values and meaning: "Nihilism is . . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts ones shoulder to the plough; one destroys" (Will to Power).The caustic strength of nihilism is absolute, Nietzsche argues, and under its withering scrutiny "the highest values devalue themselves. The aim is lacking, and Why finds no answer" (Will to Power). Inevitably, nihilism will expose all cherished beliefs and sacrosanct truths as symptoms of a defective Western mythos. This collapse of meaning, relevance, and purpose will be the most destructive force in history, constituting a total assault on reality and nothing less than the greatest crisis of humanity.Since Nietzsches compelling critique, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Convinced that Nietzsches analysis was accurate, for example, Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West (1926) studied several cultures to confirm that patterns of nihilism were indeed a conspicuous feature of collapsing civilizations. In each of the failed cultures he examines, Spengler noticed that centuries-old religious, artistic, and political traditions were weakened and finally toppled by the insidious workings of several distinct nihilistic postures: the Faustian nihilist "shatters the ideals"; the Apollinian nihilist "watches them crumble before his eyes"; and the Indian nihilist "withdraws from their presence into himself." Withdrawal, for instance, often identified with the negation of reality and resignation advocated by Eastern religions, is in the West associated with various versions of epicureanism and stoicism. In his study, Spengler concludes that Western civilization is already in the advanced stages of decay with all three forms of nihilism working to undermine epistemological authority and ontological grounding.In 1927, Martin Heidegger, to cite another example, observed that nihilism in various and hidden forms was already "the normal state of man" (The Question of Being). Other philosophers predictions about nihilisms impact have been dire. Outlining the symptoms of nihilism in the 20th century, Helmut Thielicke wrote that "Nihilism literally has only one truth to declare, namely, that ultimately Nothingness prevails and the world is meaningless" (Nihilism: Its Origin and Nature, with a Christian Answer, 1969). From the nihilists perspective, one can conclude that life is completely amoral, a conclusion, Thielicke believes, that motivates such monstrosities as the Nazi reign of terror. Gloomy predictions of nihilisms impact are also charted in Eugene Roses Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age (1994). If nihilism proves victorious--and its well on its way, he argues--our world will become "a cold, inhuman world" where "nothingness, incoherence, and absurdity" will triumph.Q.It can be understood from the passage that nihilism is most closely represented by which of the following beliefs?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Nihilism is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history.In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with anti-foundationalism.It has been over a century now since Nietzsche explored nihilism and its implications for civilization. As he predicted, nihilism's impact on the culture and values of the 20th century has been pervasive, its apocalyptic tenor spawning a mood of gloom and a good deal of anxiety and terror. Interestingly, Nietzsche himself, a radical skeptic preoccupied with language, knowledge, and truth, anticipated many of the themes of postmodernity. It's helpful to note, then, that he believed we could--at a terrible price--eventually work through nihilism. I am sure if we survived the process of destroying all interpretations of the world, we could then perhaps discover the correct course for humankind.For Nietzsche, there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. Penetrating the façades buttressing convictions, the nihilist discovers that all values are baseless and that reason is impotent. "Every belief, every considering something-true," Nietzsche writes, "is necessarily false because there is simply no true world" (Will to Power [notes from 1883-1888]). For him, nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all imposed values and meaning: "Nihilism is . . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys" (Will to Power).The caustic strength of nihilism is absolute, Nietzsche argues, and under its withering scrutiny "the highest values devalue themselves. The aim is lacking, and 'Why' finds no answer" (Will to Power). Inevitably, nihilism will expose all cherished beliefs and sacrosanct truths as symptoms of a defective Western mythos. This collapse of meaning, relevance, and purpose will be the most destructive force in history, constituting a total assault on reality and nothing less than the greatest crisis of humanity.Since Nietzsche's compelling critique, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Convinced that Nietzsche's analysis was accurate, for example, Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West (1926) studied several cultures to confirm that patterns of nihilism were indeed a conspicuous feature of collapsing civilizations. In each of the failed cultures he examines, Spengler noticed that centuries-old religious, artistic, and political traditions were weakened and finally toppled by the insidious workings of several distinct nihilistic postures: the Faustian nihilist "shatters the ideals"; the Apollinian nihilist "watches them crumble before his eyes"; and the Indian nihilist "withdraws from their presence into himself." Withdrawal, for instance, often identified with the negation of reality and resignation advocated by Eastern religions, is in the West associated with various versions of epicureanism and stoicism. In his study, Spengler concludes that Western civilization is already in the advanced stages of decay with all three forms of nihilism working to undermine epistemological authority and ontological grounding.In 1927, Martin Heidegger, to cite another example, observed that nihilism in various and hidden forms was already "the normal state of man" (The Question of Being). Other philosophers' predictions about nihilism's impact have been dire. Outlining the symptoms of nihilism in the 20th century, Helmut Thielicke wrote that "Nihilism literally has only one truth to declare, namely, that ultimately Nothingness prevails and the world is meaningless" (Nihilism: Its Origin and Nature, with a Christian Answer, 1969). From the nihilist's perspective, one can conclude that life is completely amoral, a conclusion, Thielicke believes, that motivates such monstrosities as the Nazi reign of terror. Gloomy predictions of nihilism's impact are also charted in Eugene Rose's Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age (1994). If nihilism proves victorious--and it's well on its way, he argues--our world will become "a cold, inhuman world" where "nothingness, incoherence, and absurdity" will triumph.Q. It can be understood from the passage that the main purpose of the author in the second paragraph is which of the following?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Nihilism is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history.In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with anti-foundationalism.It has been over a century now since Nietzsche explored nihilism and its implications for civilization. As he predicted, nihilism's impact on the culture and values of the 20th century has been pervasive, its apocalyptic tenor spawning a mood of gloom and a good deal of anxiety and terror. Interestingly, Nietzsche himself, a radical skeptic preoccupied with language, knowledge, and truth, anticipated many of the themes of postmodernity. It's helpful to note, then, that he believed we could--at a terrible price--eventually work through nihilism. I am sure if we survived the process of destroying all interpretations of the world, we could then perhaps discover the correct course for humankind.For Nietzsche, there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. Penetrating the façades buttressing convictions, the nihilist discovers that all values are baseless and that reason is impotent. "Every belief, every considering something-true," Nietzsche writes, "is necessarily false because there is simply no true world" (Will to Power [notes from 1883-1888]). For him, nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all imposed values and meaning: "Nihilism is . . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys" (Will to Power).The caustic strength of nihilism is absolute, Nietzsche argues, and under its withering scrutiny "the highest values devalue themselves. The aim is lacking, and 'Why' finds no answer" (Will to Power). Inevitably, nihilism will expose all cherished beliefs and sacrosanct truths as symptoms of a defective Western mythos. This collapse of meaning, relevance, and purpose will be the most destructive force in history, constituting a total assault on reality and nothing less than the greatest crisis of humanity.Since Nietzsche's compelling critique, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Convinced that Nietzsche's analysis was accurate, for example, Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West (1926) studied several cultures to confirm that patterns of nihilism were indeed a conspicuous feature of collapsing civilizations. In each of the failed cultures he examines, Spengler noticed that centuries-old religious, artistic, and political traditions were weakened and finally toppled by the insidious workings of several distinct nihilistic postures: the Faustian nihilist "shatters the ideals"; the Apollinian nihilist "watches them crumble before his eyes"; and the Indian nihilist "withdraws from their presence into himself." Withdrawal, for instance, often identified with the negation of reality and resignation advocated by Eastern religions, is in the West associated with various versions of epicureanism and stoicism. In his study, Spengler concludes that Western civilization is already in the advanced stages of decay with all three forms of nihilism working to undermine epistemological authority and ontological grounding.In 1927, Martin Heidegger, to cite another example, observed that nihilism in various and hidden forms was already "the normal state of man" (The Question of Being). Other philosophers' predictions about nihilism's impact have been dire. Outlining the symptoms of nihilism in the 20th century, Helmut Thielicke wrote that "Nihilism literally has only one truth to declare, namely, that ultimately Nothingness prevails and the world is meaningless" (Nihilism: Its Origin and Nature, with a Christian Answer, 1969). From the nihilist's perspective, one can conclude that life is completely amoral, a conclusion, Thielicke believes, that motivates such monstrosities as the Nazi reign of terror. Gloomy predictions of nihilism's impact are also charted in Eugene Rose's Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age (1994). If nihilism proves victorious--and it's well on its way, he argues--our world will become "a cold, inhuman world" where "nothingness, incoherence, and absurdity" will triumph.Q. It can be understood from the passage that nihilism is most closely represented by which of the following beliefs?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Nihilism is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history.In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with anti-foundationalism.It has been over a century now since Nietzsche explored nihilism and its implications for civilization. As he predicted, nihilism's impact on the culture and values of the 20th century has been pervasive, its apocalyptic tenor spawning a mood of gloom and a good deal of anxiety and terror. Interestingly, Nietzsche himself, a radical skeptic preoccupied with language, knowledge, and truth, anticipated many of the themes of postmodernity. It's helpful to note, then, that he believed we could--at a terrible price--eventually work through nihilism. I am sure if we survived the process of destroying all interpretations of the world, we could then perhaps discover the correct course for humankind.For Nietzsche, there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. Penetrating the façades buttressing convictions, the nihilist discovers that all values are baseless and that reason is impotent. "Every belief, every considering something-true," Nietzsche writes, "is necessarily false because there is simply no true world" (Will to Power [notes from 1883-1888]). For him, nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all imposed values and meaning: "Nihilism is . . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys" (Will to Power).The caustic strength of nihilism is absolute, Nietzsche argues, and under its withering scrutiny "the highest values devalue themselves. The aim is lacking, and 'Why' finds no answer" (Will to Power). Inevitably, nihilism will expose all cherished beliefs and sacrosanct truths as symptoms of a defective Western mythos. This collapse of meaning, relevance, and purpose will be the most destructive force in history, constituting a total assault on reality and nothing less than the greatest crisis of humanity.Since Nietzsche's compelling critique, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Convinced that Nietzsche's analysis was accurate, for example, Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West (1926) studied several cultures to confirm that patterns of nihilism were indeed a conspicuous feature of collapsing civilizations. In each of the failed cultures he examines, Spengler noticed that centuries-old religious, artistic, and political traditions were weakened and finally toppled by the insidious workings of several distinct nihilistic postures: the Faustian nihilist "shatters the ideals"; the Apollinian nihilist "watches them crumble before his eyes"; and the Indian nihilist "withdraws from their presence into himself." Withdrawal, for instance, often identified with the negation of reality and resignation advocated by Eastern religions, is in the West associated with various versions of epicureanism and stoicism. In his study, Spengler concludes that Western civilization is already in the advanced stages of decay with all three forms of nihilism working to undermine epistemological authority and ontological grounding.In 1927, Martin Heidegger, to cite another example, observed that nihilism in various and hidden forms was already "the normal state of man" (The Question of Being). Other philosophers' predictions about nihilism's impact have been dire. Outlining the symptoms of nihilism in the 20th century, Helmut Thielicke wrote that "Nihilism literally has only one truth to declare, namely, that ultimately Nothingness prevails and the world is meaningless" (Nihilism: Its Origin and Nature, with a Christian Answer, 1969). From the nihilist's perspective, one can conclude that life is completely amoral, a conclusion, Thielicke believes, that motivates such monstrosities as the Nazi reign of terror. Gloomy predictions of nihilism's impact are also charted in Eugene Rose's Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age (1994). If nihilism proves victorious--and it's well on its way, he argues--our world will become "a cold, inhuman world" where "nothingness, incoherence, and absurdity" will triumph.Q. Which of the following would be the most appropriate title for the above passage?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Nihilism is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history.In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with anti-foundationalism.It has been over a century now since Nietzsche explored nihilism and its implications for civilization. As he predicted, nihilism's impact on the culture and values of the 20th century has been pervasive, its apocalyptic tenor spawning a mood of gloom and a good deal of anxiety and terror. Interestingly, Nietzsche himself, a radical skeptic preoccupied with language, knowledge, and truth, anticipated many of the themes of postmodernity. It's helpful to note, then, that he believed we could--at a terrible price--eventually work through nihilism. I am sure if we survived the process of destroying all interpretations of the world, we could then perhaps discover the correct course for humankind.For Nietzsche, there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. Penetrating the façades buttressing convictions, the nihilist discovers that all values are baseless and that reason is impotent. "Every belief, every considering something-true," Nietzsche writes, "is necessarily false because there is simply no true world" (Will to Power [notes from 1883-1888]). For him, nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all imposed values and meaning: "Nihilism is . . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys" (Will to Power).The caustic strength of nihilism is absolute, Nietzsche argues, and under its withering scrutiny "the highest values devalue themselves. The aim is lacking, and 'Why' finds no answer" (Will to Power). Inevitably, nihilism will expose all cherished beliefs and sacrosanct truths as symptoms of a defective Western mythos. This collapse of meaning, relevance, and purpose will be the most destructive force in history, constituting a total assault on reality and nothing less than the greatest crisis of humanity.Since Nietzsche's compelling critique, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Convinced that Nietzsche's analysis was accurate, for example, Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West (1926) studied several cultures to confirm that patterns of nihilism were indeed a conspicuous feature of collapsing civilizations. In each of the failed cultures he examines, Spengler noticed that centuries-old religious, artistic, and political traditions were weakened and finally toppled by the insidious workings of several distinct nihilistic postures: the Faustian nihilist "shatters the ideals"; the Apollinian nihilist "watches them crumble before his eyes"; and the Indian nihilist "withdraws from their presence into himself." Withdrawal, for instance, often identified with the negation of reality and resignation advocated by Eastern religions, is in the West associated with various versions of epicureanism and stoicism. In his study, Spengler concludes that Western civilization is already in the advanced stages of decay with all three forms of nihilism working to undermine epistemological authority and ontological grounding.In 1927, Martin Heidegger, to cite another example, observed that nihilism in various and hidden forms was already "the normal state of man" (The Question of Being). Other philosophers' predictions about nihilism's impact have been dire. Outlining the symptoms of nihilism in the 20th century, Helmut Thielicke wrote that "Nihilism literally has only one truth to declare, namely, that ultimately Nothingness prevails and the world is meaningless" (Nihilism: Its Origin and Nature, with a Christian Answer, 1969). From the nihilist's perspective, one can conclude that life is completely amoral, a conclusion, Thielicke believes, that motivates such monstrosities as the Nazi reign of terror. Gloomy predictions of nihilism's impact are also charted in Eugene Rose's Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age (1994). If nihilism proves victorious--and it's well on its way, he argues--our world will become "a cold, inhuman world" where "nothingness, incoherence, and absurdity" will triumph.Q. Which of the following best describes the tone of the passage?

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.I believe that the world-wide acclaim given to The Diary of Anne Frank and to the play and movie based on her story cannot be explained unless we recognize in it our wish to forget the gas chambers, and our effort to do so by glorifying the ability to retreat into an extremely private, gentle. sensitive world, and there to cling as much as possible to what have been ones usual daily attitudes and activities, although surrounded by a maelstrom apt to engulf one at any moment.The Frank familys attitude that life could be carried on as before may well have been what led to their destruction. By eulogizing how they lived in their hiding place while neglecting to examine first whether it was a reasonable or an effective choice, we are able to ignore the crucial lesson of their story- that such an attitude can be fatal in extreme circumstances.While the Franks were making their preparations for going passively into hiding, thousands of other Jews in Holland (as elsewhere in Europe) were trying to escape to the free world, in order to survive and/or fight. Others who could not escape went underground - into hiding - each family member with, for example, a different gentile family. We gather from the diary, however, that the chief desire of the Frank family was to continue living as nearly as possible in the same fashion to which they had been accustomed in happier times.Little Anne, too, wanted only to go on with life as usual, and what else could she have done but fall in with the pattern her parents created for her existence ? But hers was not a necessary fate, much less a heroic one: it was a terrible but also a senseless fate. Anne had a good chance to survive, as did many Jewish children in Holland. But she would have had to leave her parents and go live with a gentile Dutch family, posing as their own child, something her parents would have had to arrange for her.Everyone who recognized the obvious knew that the hardest way to go underground was to do it as a family: to hide out together made detection by the SS most likely: and when detected, everybody was doomed. By hiding singly, even when one got caught, the others had a chance to survive. The Franks, with their excellent connections among gentile Dutch families, might well have been able to hide out singly, each with a different family. But instead, the main principle of their planning was continuing their beloved family life- an understandable desire, but highly unrealistic in those times. Choosing any other course would have meant not merely giving up living together but also realizing the lull measure of the danger to their lives.But even given their wish not to separate, they failed to make appropriate preparations for what was likely to happen.There is little doubt that the Franks, who were able to provide themselves with so much while arranging for going into hiding, and even while hiding, could have provided themselves with some weapons had they wished. Had they had a gun, Mr. Frank could have shot down at least one or two of the "green police" who came for them. There was no surplus of such police, and the loss of an SS with every Jew arrested would have noticeably hindered the functioning of the police state. The fate of the Franks wouldnt have been very different, because they all died anyway except for Annes father. But they could have sold their lives for a high price, instead walking to their death.An entirely different matter would have been planning for escape in case of discovery. The Franks hiding place had only one entrance: it did not have any other exit. Despite the fact, during their many months of hiding, they did not try to devise one. Nor did they make other plans for escape.Q.The author cites the example of the book "Diary of Anne Frank" to demonstrate thata)the nature of the camps was murderous, but not personality destructiveb)the hiding place was an effective choicec)the Frank family could have done much better to save themselves than they didd)in those days, human oppression was at its nadire)life goes on and even blossoms under the greatest adversityCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.I believe that the world-wide acclaim given to The Diary of Anne Frank and to the play and movie based on her story cannot be explained unless we recognize in it our wish to forget the gas chambers, and our effort to do so by glorifying the ability to retreat into an extremely private, gentle. sensitive world, and there to cling as much as possible to what have been ones usual daily attitudes and activities, although surrounded by a maelstrom apt to engulf one at any moment.The Frank familys attitude that life could be carried on as before may well have been what led to their destruction. By eulogizing how they lived in their hiding place while neglecting to examine first whether it was a reasonable or an effective choice, we are able to ignore the crucial lesson of their story- that such an attitude can be fatal in extreme circumstances.While the Franks were making their preparations for going passively into hiding, thousands of other Jews in Holland (as elsewhere in Europe) were trying to escape to the free world, in order to survive and/or fight. Others who could not escape went underground - into hiding - each family member with, for example, a different gentile family. We gather from the diary, however, that the chief desire of the Frank family was to continue living as nearly as possible in the same fashion to which they had been accustomed in happier times.Little Anne, too, wanted only to go on with life as usual, and what else could she have done but fall in with the pattern her parents created for her existence ? But hers was not a necessary fate, much less a heroic one: it was a terrible but also a senseless fate. Anne had a good chance to survive, as did many Jewish children in Holland. But she would have had to leave her parents and go live with a gentile Dutch family, posing as their own child, something her parents would have had to arrange for her.Everyone who recognized the obvious knew that the hardest way to go underground was to do it as a family: to hide out together made detection by the SS most likely: and when detected, everybody was doomed. By hiding singly, even when one got caught, the others had a chance to survive. The Franks, with their excellent connections among gentile Dutch families, might well have been able to hide out singly, each with a different family. But instead, the main principle of their planning was continuing their beloved family life- an understandable desire, but highly unrealistic in those times. Choosing any other course would have meant not merely giving up living together but also realizing the lull measure of the danger to their lives.But even given their wish not to separate, they failed to make appropriate preparations for what was likely to happen.There is little doubt that the Franks, who were able to provide themselves with so much while arranging for going into hiding, and even while hiding, could have provided themselves with some weapons had they wished. Had they had a gun, Mr. Frank could have shot down at least one or two of the "green police" who came for them. There was no surplus of such police, and the loss of an SS with every Jew arrested would have noticeably hindered the functioning of the police state. The fate of the Franks wouldnt have been very different, because they all died anyway except for Annes father. But they could have sold their lives for a high price, instead walking to their death.An entirely different matter would have been planning for escape in case of discovery. The Franks hiding place had only one entrance: it did not have any other exit. Despite the fact, during their many months of hiding, they did not try to devise one. Nor did they make other plans for escape.Q.The author cites the example of the book "Diary of Anne Frank" to demonstrate thata)the nature of the camps was murderous, but not personality destructiveb)the hiding place was an effective choicec)the Frank family could have done much better to save themselves than they didd)in those days, human oppression was at its nadire)life goes on and even blossoms under the greatest adversityCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.I believe that the world-wide acclaim given to The Diary of Anne Frank and to the play and movie based on her story cannot be explained unless we recognize in it our wish to forget the gas chambers, and our effort to do so by glorifying the ability to retreat into an extremely private, gentle. sensitive world, and there to cling as much as possible to what have been ones usual daily attitudes and activities, although surrounded by a maelstrom apt to engulf one at any moment.The Frank familys attitude that life could be carried on as before may well have been what led to their destruction. By eulogizing how they lived in their hiding place while neglecting to examine first whether it was a reasonable or an effective choice, we are able to ignore the crucial lesson of their story- that such an attitude can be fatal in extreme circumstances.While the Franks were making their preparations for going passively into hiding, thousands of other Jews in Holland (as elsewhere in Europe) were trying to escape to the free world, in order to survive and/or fight. Others who could not escape went underground - into hiding - each family member with, for example, a different gentile family. We gather from the diary, however, that the chief desire of the Frank family was to continue living as nearly as possible in the same fashion to which they had been accustomed in happier times.Little Anne, too, wanted only to go on with life as usual, and what else could she have done but fall in with the pattern her parents created for her existence ? But hers was not a necessary fate, much less a heroic one: it was a terrible but also a senseless fate. Anne had a good chance to survive, as did many Jewish children in Holland. But she would have had to leave her parents and go live with a gentile Dutch family, posing as their own child, something her parents would have had to arrange for her.Everyone who recognized the obvious knew that the hardest way to go underground was to do it as a family: to hide out together made detection by the SS most likely: and when detected, everybody was doomed. By hiding singly, even when one got caught, the others had a chance to survive. The Franks, with their excellent connections among gentile Dutch families, might well have been able to hide out singly, each with a different family. But instead, the main principle of their planning was continuing their beloved family life- an understandable desire, but highly unrealistic in those times. Choosing any other course would have meant not merely giving up living together but also realizing the lull measure of the danger to their lives.But even given their wish not to separate, they failed to make appropriate preparations for what was likely to happen.There is little doubt that the Franks, who were able to provide themselves with so much while arranging for going into hiding, and even while hiding, could have provided themselves with some weapons had they wished. Had they had a gun, Mr. Frank could have shot down at least one or two of the "green police" who came for them. There was no surplus of such police, and the loss of an SS with every Jew arrested would have noticeably hindered the functioning of the police state. The fate of the Franks wouldnt have been very different, because they all died anyway except for Annes father. But they could have sold their lives for a high price, instead walking to their death.An entirely different matter would have been planning for escape in case of discovery. The Franks hiding place had only one entrance: it did not have any other exit. Despite the fact, during their many months of hiding, they did not try to devise one. Nor did they make other plans for escape.Q.The author cites the example of the book "Diary of Anne Frank" to demonstrate thata)the nature of the camps was murderous, but not personality destructiveb)the hiding place was an effective choicec)the Frank family could have done much better to save themselves than they didd)in those days, human oppression was at its nadire)life goes on and even blossoms under the greatest adversityCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.I believe that the world-wide acclaim given to The Diary of Anne Frank and to the play and movie based on her story cannot be explained unless we recognize in it our wish to forget the gas chambers, and our effort to do so by glorifying the ability to retreat into an extremely private, gentle. sensitive world, and there to cling as much as possible to what have been ones usual daily attitudes and activities, although surrounded by a maelstrom apt to engulf one at any moment.The Frank familys attitude that life could be carried on as before may well have been what led to their destruction. By eulogizing how they lived in their hiding place while neglecting to examine first whether it was a reasonable or an effective choice, we are able to ignore the crucial lesson of their story- that such an attitude can be fatal in extreme circumstances.While the Franks were making their preparations for going passively into hiding, thousands of other Jews in Holland (as elsewhere in Europe) were trying to escape to the free world, in order to survive and/or fight. Others who could not escape went underground - into hiding - each family member with, for example, a different gentile family. We gather from the diary, however, that the chief desire of the Frank family was to continue living as nearly as possible in the same fashion to which they had been accustomed in happier times.Little Anne, too, wanted only to go on with life as usual, and what else could she have done but fall in with the pattern her parents created for her existence ? But hers was not a necessary fate, much less a heroic one: it was a terrible but also a senseless fate. Anne had a good chance to survive, as did many Jewish children in Holland. But she would have had to leave her parents and go live with a gentile Dutch family, posing as their own child, something her parents would have had to arrange for her.Everyone who recognized the obvious knew that the hardest way to go underground was to do it as a family: to hide out together made detection by the SS most likely: and when detected, everybody was doomed. By hiding singly, even when one got caught, the others had a chance to survive. The Franks, with their excellent connections among gentile Dutch families, might well have been able to hide out singly, each with a different family. But instead, the main principle of their planning was continuing their beloved family life- an understandable desire, but highly unrealistic in those times. Choosing any other course would have meant not merely giving up living together but also realizing the lull measure of the danger to their lives.But even given their wish not to separate, they failed to make appropriate preparations for what was likely to happen.There is little doubt that the Franks, who were able to provide themselves with so much while arranging for going into hiding, and even while hiding, could have provided themselves with some weapons had they wished. Had they had a gun, Mr. Frank could have shot down at least one or two of the "green police" who came for them. There was no surplus of such police, and the loss of an SS with every Jew arrested would have noticeably hindered the functioning of the police state. The fate of the Franks wouldnt have been very different, because they all died anyway except for Annes father. But they could have sold their lives for a high price, instead walking to their death.An entirely different matter would have been planning for escape in case of discovery. The Franks hiding place had only one entrance: it did not have any other exit. Despite the fact, during their many months of hiding, they did not try to devise one. Nor did they make other plans for escape.Q.The author cites the example of the book "Diary of Anne Frank" to demonstrate thata)the nature of the camps was murderous, but not personality destructiveb)the hiding place was an effective choicec)the Frank family could have done much better to save themselves than they didd)in those days, human oppression was at its nadire)life goes on and even blossoms under the greatest adversityCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.I believe that the world-wide acclaim given to The Diary of Anne Frank and to the play and movie based on her story cannot be explained unless we recognize in it our wish to forget the gas chambers, and our effort to do so by glorifying the ability to retreat into an extremely private, gentle. sensitive world, and there to cling as much as possible to what have been ones usual daily attitudes and activities, although surrounded by a maelstrom apt to engulf one at any moment.The Frank familys attitude that life could be carried on as before may well have been what led to their destruction. By eulogizing how they lived in their hiding place while neglecting to examine first whether it was a reasonable or an effective choice, we are able to ignore the crucial lesson of their story- that such an attitude can be fatal in extreme circumstances.While the Franks were making their preparations for going passively into hiding, thousands of other Jews in Holland (as elsewhere in Europe) were trying to escape to the free world, in order to survive and/or fight. Others who could not escape went underground - into hiding - each family member with, for example, a different gentile family. We gather from the diary, however, that the chief desire of the Frank family was to continue living as nearly as possible in the same fashion to which they had been accustomed in happier times.Little Anne, too, wanted only to go on with life as usual, and what else could she have done but fall in with the pattern her parents created for her existence ? But hers was not a necessary fate, much less a heroic one: it was a terrible but also a senseless fate. Anne had a good chance to survive, as did many Jewish children in Holland. But she would have had to leave her parents and go live with a gentile Dutch family, posing as their own child, something her parents would have had to arrange for her.Everyone who recognized the obvious knew that the hardest way to go underground was to do it as a family: to hide out together made detection by the SS most likely: and when detected, everybody was doomed. By hiding singly, even when one got caught, the others had a chance to survive. The Franks, with their excellent connections among gentile Dutch families, might well have been able to hide out singly, each with a different family. But instead, the main principle of their planning was continuing their beloved family life- an understandable desire, but highly unrealistic in those times. Choosing any other course would have meant not merely giving up living together but also realizing the lull measure of the danger to their lives.But even given their wish not to separate, they failed to make appropriate preparations for what was likely to happen.There is little doubt that the Franks, who were able to provide themselves with so much while arranging for going into hiding, and even while hiding, could have provided themselves with some weapons had they wished. Had they had a gun, Mr. Frank could have shot down at least one or two of the "green police" who came for them. There was no surplus of such police, and the loss of an SS with every Jew arrested would have noticeably hindered the functioning of the police state. The fate of the Franks wouldnt have been very different, because they all died anyway except for Annes father. But they could have sold their lives for a high price, instead walking to their death.An entirely different matter would have been planning for escape in case of discovery. The Franks hiding place had only one entrance: it did not have any other exit. Despite the fact, during their many months of hiding, they did not try to devise one. Nor did they make other plans for escape.Q.The author cites the example of the book "Diary of Anne Frank" to demonstrate thata)the nature of the camps was murderous, but not personality destructiveb)the hiding place was an effective choicec)the Frank family could have done much better to save themselves than they didd)in those days, human oppression was at its nadire)life goes on and even blossoms under the greatest adversityCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.I believe that the world-wide acclaim given to The Diary of Anne Frank and to the play and movie based on her story cannot be explained unless we recognize in it our wish to forget the gas chambers, and our effort to do so by glorifying the ability to retreat into an extremely private, gentle. sensitive world, and there to cling as much as possible to what have been ones usual daily attitudes and activities, although surrounded by a maelstrom apt to engulf one at any moment.The Frank familys attitude that life could be carried on as before may well have been what led to their destruction. By eulogizing how they lived in their hiding place while neglecting to examine first whether it was a reasonable or an effective choice, we are able to ignore the crucial lesson of their story- that such an attitude can be fatal in extreme circumstances.While the Franks were making their preparations for going passively into hiding, thousands of other Jews in Holland (as elsewhere in Europe) were trying to escape to the free world, in order to survive and/or fight. Others who could not escape went underground - into hiding - each family member with, for example, a different gentile family. We gather from the diary, however, that the chief desire of the Frank family was to continue living as nearly as possible in the same fashion to which they had been accustomed in happier times.Little Anne, too, wanted only to go on with life as usual, and what else could she have done but fall in with the pattern her parents created for her existence ? But hers was not a necessary fate, much less a heroic one: it was a terrible but also a senseless fate. Anne had a good chance to survive, as did many Jewish children in Holland. But she would have had to leave her parents and go live with a gentile Dutch family, posing as their own child, something her parents would have had to arrange for her.Everyone who recognized the obvious knew that the hardest way to go underground was to do it as a family: to hide out together made detection by the SS most likely: and when detected, everybody was doomed. By hiding singly, even when one got caught, the others had a chance to survive. The Franks, with their excellent connections among gentile Dutch families, might well have been able to hide out singly, each with a different family. But instead, the main principle of their planning was continuing their beloved family life- an understandable desire, but highly unrealistic in those times. Choosing any other course would have meant not merely giving up living together but also realizing the lull measure of the danger to their lives.But even given their wish not to separate, they failed to make appropriate preparations for what was likely to happen.There is little doubt that the Franks, who were able to provide themselves with so much while arranging for going into hiding, and even while hiding, could have provided themselves with some weapons had they wished. Had they had a gun, Mr. Frank could have shot down at least one or two of the "green police" who came for them. There was no surplus of such police, and the loss of an SS with every Jew arrested would have noticeably hindered the functioning of the police state. The fate of the Franks wouldnt have been very different, because they all died anyway except for Annes father. But they could have sold their lives for a high price, instead walking to their death.An entirely different matter would have been planning for escape in case of discovery. The Franks hiding place had only one entrance: it did not have any other exit. Despite the fact, during their many months of hiding, they did not try to devise one. Nor did they make other plans for escape.Q.The author cites the example of the book "Diary of Anne Frank" to demonstrate thata)the nature of the camps was murderous, but not personality destructiveb)the hiding place was an effective choicec)the Frank family could have done much better to save themselves than they didd)in those days, human oppression was at its nadire)life goes on and even blossoms under the greatest adversityCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.I believe that the world-wide acclaim given to The Diary of Anne Frank and to the play and movie based on her story cannot be explained unless we recognize in it our wish to forget the gas chambers, and our effort to do so by glorifying the ability to retreat into an extremely private, gentle. sensitive world, and there to cling as much as possible to what have been ones usual daily attitudes and activities, although surrounded by a maelstrom apt to engulf one at any moment.The Frank familys attitude that life could be carried on as before may well have been what led to their destruction. By eulogizing how they lived in their hiding place while neglecting to examine first whether it was a reasonable or an effective choice, we are able to ignore the crucial lesson of their story- that such an attitude can be fatal in extreme circumstances.While the Franks were making their preparations for going passively into hiding, thousands of other Jews in Holland (as elsewhere in Europe) were trying to escape to the free world, in order to survive and/or fight. Others who could not escape went underground - into hiding - each family member with, for example, a different gentile family. We gather from the diary, however, that the chief desire of the Frank family was to continue living as nearly as possible in the same fashion to which they had been accustomed in happier times.Little Anne, too, wanted only to go on with life as usual, and what else could she have done but fall in with the pattern her parents created for her existence ? But hers was not a necessary fate, much less a heroic one: it was a terrible but also a senseless fate. Anne had a good chance to survive, as did many Jewish children in Holland. But she would have had to leave her parents and go live with a gentile Dutch family, posing as their own child, something her parents would have had to arrange for her.Everyone who recognized the obvious knew that the hardest way to go underground was to do it as a family: to hide out together made detection by the SS most likely: and when detected, everybody was doomed. By hiding singly, even when one got caught, the others had a chance to survive. The Franks, with their excellent connections among gentile Dutch families, might well have been able to hide out singly, each with a different family. But instead, the main principle of their planning was continuing their beloved family life- an understandable desire, but highly unrealistic in those times. Choosing any other course would have meant not merely giving up living together but also realizing the lull measure of the danger to their lives.But even given their wish not to separate, they failed to make appropriate preparations for what was likely to happen.There is little doubt that the Franks, who were able to provide themselves with so much while arranging for going into hiding, and even while hiding, could have provided themselves with some weapons had they wished. Had they had a gun, Mr. Frank could have shot down at least one or two of the "green police" who came for them. There was no surplus of such police, and the loss of an SS with every Jew arrested would have noticeably hindered the functioning of the police state. The fate of the Franks wouldnt have been very different, because they all died anyway except for Annes father. But they could have sold their lives for a high price, instead walking to their death.An entirely different matter would have been planning for escape in case of discovery. The Franks hiding place had only one entrance: it did not have any other exit. Despite the fact, during their many months of hiding, they did not try to devise one. Nor did they make other plans for escape.Q.The author cites the example of the book "Diary of Anne Frank" to demonstrate thata)the nature of the camps was murderous, but not personality destructiveb)the hiding place was an effective choicec)the Frank family could have done much better to save themselves than they didd)in those days, human oppression was at its nadire)life goes on and even blossoms under the greatest adversityCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.I believe that the world-wide acclaim given to The Diary of Anne Frank and to the play and movie based on her story cannot be explained unless we recognize in it our wish to forget the gas chambers, and our effort to do so by glorifying the ability to retreat into an extremely private, gentle. sensitive world, and there to cling as much as possible to what have been ones usual daily attitudes and activities, although surrounded by a maelstrom apt to engulf one at any moment.The Frank familys attitude that life could be carried on as before may well have been what led to their destruction. By eulogizing how they lived in their hiding place while neglecting to examine first whether it was a reasonable or an effective choice, we are able to ignore the crucial lesson of their story- that such an attitude can be fatal in extreme circumstances.While the Franks were making their preparations for going passively into hiding, thousands of other Jews in Holland (as elsewhere in Europe) were trying to escape to the free world, in order to survive and/or fight. Others who could not escape went underground - into hiding - each family member with, for example, a different gentile family. We gather from the diary, however, that the chief desire of the Frank family was to continue living as nearly as possible in the same fashion to which they had been accustomed in happier times.Little Anne, too, wanted only to go on with life as usual, and what else could she have done but fall in with the pattern her parents created for her existence ? But hers was not a necessary fate, much less a heroic one: it was a terrible but also a senseless fate. Anne had a good chance to survive, as did many Jewish children in Holland. But she would have had to leave her parents and go live with a gentile Dutch family, posing as their own child, something her parents would have had to arrange for her.Everyone who recognized the obvious knew that the hardest way to go underground was to do it as a family: to hide out together made detection by the SS most likely: and when detected, everybody was doomed. By hiding singly, even when one got caught, the others had a chance to survive. The Franks, with their excellent connections among gentile Dutch families, might well have been able to hide out singly, each with a different family. But instead, the main principle of their planning was continuing their beloved family life- an understandable desire, but highly unrealistic in those times. Choosing any other course would have meant not merely giving up living together but also realizing the lull measure of the danger to their lives.But even given their wish not to separate, they failed to make appropriate preparations for what was likely to happen.There is little doubt that the Franks, who were able to provide themselves with so much while arranging for going into hiding, and even while hiding, could have provided themselves with some weapons had they wished. Had they had a gun, Mr. Frank could have shot down at least one or two of the "green police" who came for them. There was no surplus of such police, and the loss of an SS with every Jew arrested would have noticeably hindered the functioning of the police state. The fate of the Franks wouldnt have been very different, because they all died anyway except for Annes father. But they could have sold their lives for a high price, instead walking to their death.An entirely different matter would have been planning for escape in case of discovery. The Franks hiding place had only one entrance: it did not have any other exit. Despite the fact, during their many months of hiding, they did not try to devise one. Nor did they make other plans for escape.Q.The author cites the example of the book "Diary of Anne Frank" to demonstrate thata)the nature of the camps was murderous, but not personality destructiveb)the hiding place was an effective choicec)the Frank family could have done much better to save themselves than they didd)in those days, human oppression was at its nadire)life goes on and even blossoms under the greatest adversityCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.I believe that the world-wide acclaim given to The Diary of Anne Frank and to the play and movie based on her story cannot be explained unless we recognize in it our wish to forget the gas chambers, and our effort to do so by glorifying the ability to retreat into an extremely private, gentle. sensitive world, and there to cling as much as possible to what have been ones usual daily attitudes and activities, although surrounded by a maelstrom apt to engulf one at any moment.The Frank familys attitude that life could be carried on as before may well have been what led to their destruction. By eulogizing how they lived in their hiding place while neglecting to examine first whether it was a reasonable or an effective choice, we are able to ignore the crucial lesson of their story- that such an attitude can be fatal in extreme circumstances.While the Franks were making their preparations for going passively into hiding, thousands of other Jews in Holland (as elsewhere in Europe) were trying to escape to the free world, in order to survive and/or fight. Others who could not escape went underground - into hiding - each family member with, for example, a different gentile family. We gather from the diary, however, that the chief desire of the Frank family was to continue living as nearly as possible in the same fashion to which they had been accustomed in happier times.Little Anne, too, wanted only to go on with life as usual, and what else could she have done but fall in with the pattern her parents created for her existence ? But hers was not a necessary fate, much less a heroic one: it was a terrible but also a senseless fate. Anne had a good chance to survive, as did many Jewish children in Holland. But she would have had to leave her parents and go live with a gentile Dutch family, posing as their own child, something her parents would have had to arrange for her.Everyone who recognized the obvious knew that the hardest way to go underground was to do it as a family: to hide out together made detection by the SS most likely: and when detected, everybody was doomed. By hiding singly, even when one got caught, the others had a chance to survive. The Franks, with their excellent connections among gentile Dutch families, might well have been able to hide out singly, each with a different family. But instead, the main principle of their planning was continuing their beloved family life- an understandable desire, but highly unrealistic in those times. Choosing any other course would have meant not merely giving up living together but also realizing the lull measure of the danger to their lives.But even given their wish not to separate, they failed to make appropriate preparations for what was likely to happen.There is little doubt that the Franks, who were able to provide themselves with so much while arranging for going into hiding, and even while hiding, could have provided themselves with some weapons had they wished. Had they had a gun, Mr. Frank could have shot down at least one or two of the "green police" who came for them. There was no surplus of such police, and the loss of an SS with every Jew arrested would have noticeably hindered the functioning of the police state. The fate of the Franks wouldnt have been very different, because they all died anyway except for Annes father. But they could have sold their lives for a high price, instead walking to their death.An entirely different matter would have been planning for escape in case of discovery. The Franks hiding place had only one entrance: it did not have any other exit. Despite the fact, during their many months of hiding, they did not try to devise one. Nor did they make other plans for escape.Q.The author cites the example of the book "Diary of Anne Frank" to demonstrate thata)the nature of the camps was murderous, but not personality destructiveb)the hiding place was an effective choicec)the Frank family could have done much better to save themselves than they didd)in those days, human oppression was at its nadire)life goes on and even blossoms under the greatest adversityCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.I believe that the world-wide acclaim given to The Diary of Anne Frank and to the play and movie based on her story cannot be explained unless we recognize in it our wish to forget the gas chambers, and our effort to do so by glorifying the ability to retreat into an extremely private, gentle. sensitive world, and there to cling as much as possible to what have been ones usual daily attitudes and activities, although surrounded by a maelstrom apt to engulf one at any moment.The Frank familys attitude that life could be carried on as before may well have been what led to their destruction. By eulogizing how they lived in their hiding place while neglecting to examine first whether it was a reasonable or an effective choice, we are able to ignore the crucial lesson of their story- that such an attitude can be fatal in extreme circumstances.While the Franks were making their preparations for going passively into hiding, thousands of other Jews in Holland (as elsewhere in Europe) were trying to escape to the free world, in order to survive and/or fight. Others who could not escape went underground - into hiding - each family member with, for example, a different gentile family. We gather from the diary, however, that the chief desire of the Frank family was to continue living as nearly as possible in the same fashion to which they had been accustomed in happier times.Little Anne, too, wanted only to go on with life as usual, and what else could she have done but fall in with the pattern her parents created for her existence ? But hers was not a necessary fate, much less a heroic one: it was a terrible but also a senseless fate. Anne had a good chance to survive, as did many Jewish children in Holland. But she would have had to leave her parents and go live with a gentile Dutch family, posing as their own child, something her parents would have had to arrange for her.Everyone who recognized the obvious knew that the hardest way to go underground was to do it as a family: to hide out together made detection by the SS most likely: and when detected, everybody was doomed. By hiding singly, even when one got caught, the others had a chance to survive. The Franks, with their excellent connections among gentile Dutch families, might well have been able to hide out singly, each with a different family. But instead, the main principle of their planning was continuing their beloved family life- an understandable desire, but highly unrealistic in those times. Choosing any other course would have meant not merely giving up living together but also realizing the lull measure of the danger to their lives.But even given their wish not to separate, they failed to make appropriate preparations for what was likely to happen.There is little doubt that the Franks, who were able to provide themselves with so much while arranging for going into hiding, and even while hiding, could have provided themselves with some weapons had they wished. Had they had a gun, Mr. Frank could have shot down at least one or two of the "green police" who came for them. There was no surplus of such police, and the loss of an SS with every Jew arrested would have noticeably hindered the functioning of the police state. The fate of the Franks wouldnt have been very different, because they all died anyway except for Annes father. But they could have sold their lives for a high price, instead walking to their death.An entirely different matter would have been planning for escape in case of discovery. The Franks hiding place had only one entrance: it did not have any other exit. Despite the fact, during their many months of hiding, they did not try to devise one. Nor did they make other plans for escape.Q.The author cites the example of the book "Diary of Anne Frank" to demonstrate thata)the nature of the camps was murderous, but not personality destructiveb)the hiding place was an effective choicec)the Frank family could have done much better to save themselves than they didd)in those days, human oppression was at its nadire)life goes on and even blossoms under the greatest adversityCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
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