All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
ACT Exam  >  ACT Questions  >  Adapted fromWhat I Think and Feel at Twenty-F... Start Learning for Free
Adapted from What I Think and Feel at Twenty-Five (1922) by F. Scott Fitzgerald
As a man grows older it stands to reason that his vulnerability increases. Three years ago, for instance, I could be hurt in only one way—through myself. If my best friend’s wife had her hair torn off by an electric washing-machine, I was grieved, of course. I would make my friend a long speech full of “old mans,” and finish up with a paragraph from Washington’s Farewell Address; but when I’d finished I could go to a good restaurant and enjoy my dinner as usual. In fact I was pretty much invulnerable. I put up a conventional wail whenever a ship was sunk or a train got wrecked; but I don’t suppose, if the whole city of Chicago had been wiped out, I’d have lost a night’s sleep over it—unless something led me to believe that St. Paul was the next city on the list. Even then I could have moved my luggage over to Minneapolis and rested pretty comfortably all night.
But that was three years ago when I was still a young man. I was only twenty-two. Now, I’m vulnerable. I’m vulnerable in every way. I used to have about ten square feet of skin vulnerable to chills and fevers. Now I have about twenty. I have not personally enlarged, the twenty feet includes the skin of my family, but I might as well have, because if a chill or fever strikes any bit of that twenty feet of skin I begin to shiver. And so I ooze gently into middle-age; for the true middle-age is not the acquirement of years, but the acquirement of a family. The incomes of the childless have wonderful elasticity. Two people require a room and a bath; a couple with child requires the millionaire’s suite on the sunny side of the hotel. And yet I think that marriage is the most satisfactory institution we have. I’m simply stating my belief that when Life has used us for its purposes it takes away all our attractive qualities and gives us, instead, ponderous but shallow convictions of our own wisdom and “experience.” The older I grow the more I get so I don’t know anything. If I had been asked to do this article about five years ago it might have been worth reading.
Q. From the context of the whole passage, what can be inferred about the author’s opinions on the “wisdom and experience” of middle-age?
  • a)
    It is illusory.
  • b)
    It is necessary for individual growth.
  • c)
    It is important for raising a family.
  • d)
    It cannot replace good humor.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your ACT doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
Adapted fromWhat I Think and Feel at Twenty-Five(1922) by F. Scott Fit...
The author contends that the “wisdom and experience” of middle-age are illusory sensations. Throughout the whole passage the author makes reference to the growing vulnerability that accompanies middle-age.  The author says “I’m simply stating my belief that when Life has used us for its purposes it takes away all our attractive qualities and gives us, instead, ponderous but shallow convictions of our own wisdom and 'experience.' The older I grow the more I get so I don’t know anything.” In addition to admitting his own feelings about growing older the author disparages middle-aged wisdom as “shallow convictions” and even goes to the length of putting experience in quotations.
Explore Courses for ACT exam

Similar ACT Doubts

Directions:Read the passages and choose the best answer to each question.PassageNATURAL SCIENCE: A Short History of HomeopathyHomeopathy is a system for treating physical dis-ease and other ailments using the theory of treating“like with like.” In practice, homeopathic medicineseeks substances that mimic an ailment’s symptoms;(5) this sameness is considered “likeness.” The substanceis then diluted to infinitesimal amounts and admin-istered to the patient in order to cure the problem.Homeopathic treatment is currently in use for every-thing from cancer to colds and flu, though many(10) scientists remain heavily skeptical about its efficacy.Homeopathy was developed in the late 18thcentury by the German medical doctor SamuelHahnemann. Despite being a physician himself,Hahnemann was deeply skeptical of the medical prac-(15) tices of his time. In general, 18th century medicinewas founded on the theory of the four temperaments,or “humors”: Choleric, Melancholic, Sanguine, andPhlegmatic. These temperaments were based on thevarious possible combinations of hot and cold and wet(20) and dry. A choleric, or angry, disposition meant thata person had a constitution that was essentially hotand dry. Phlegmatic, or unemotional, persons werethought to be cold and wet. Melancholy was caused byan excess of cold and dry, whereas Sanguine, or(25) passionate, persons were hot and wet.Humors theory was first developed by theGreek physician Hippocrates, the founder of westernmedicine, and later expanded upon by Galen. When aperson became ill, doctors believed it was because one(30) or more of the humors had come out of balance. Someof the best treatments were thought to be bloodlettingand purgation —the assumption being that these treat-ments would effectively drain off the excess humors.Other popular treatments included blistering plasters(35) and emetics. Often the treatment proved worse thanthe disease. Many patients died from excessive blood-loss or were poisoned by unregulated medications. Inthis environment, Hahnemann’s skepticism was wellwarranted.(40) Hahnemann first stumbled upon his theory whenhe was investigating a common treatment for malaria,cinchona bark. Modern scientists now know thatcinchona bark contains quinine—a substance still usedto treat malaria—but at the time, no one knew why(45) the bark was effective. Hahnemann chose to imple-ment the concept of treating “like with like” by testingan undiluted dose of the bark on himself. Finding thathe had symptoms similar to those of malaria sufferers,Hahnemann concluded that effective drugs must pro-(50) duce symptoms in healthy people that are similar tothose produced by the diseases that the drugs wouldbe expected to treat. Hahnemann further hypothesizedthat, while undiluted substances would only worsensymptoms in the sick, heavily diluted substances could(55) be effective for a cure. The doctor and his colleaguesthen proceeded to test a variety of substances to seewhat symptoms they induced, in the hopes of find-ing cures for diseases with similar symptoms. Perhapsnot surprisingly, Hahnemann’s new field of homeopa-(60) thy (i.e. “similar suffering”) was met with considerableresistance from doctors comfortable with their usualpractices.In fact, Hahnemann’s methodology for scien-tifically testing potential treatments was remarkably(65) modern. Nevertheless, his conclusions remain extraor-dinarily controversial. One of the main points ofcontention involves the standard homeopathic prac-tice of heavy dilution to create the appropriate doseof a substance. Dilution of homeopathic substances(70) happens in stages. Hahnemann had hypothesized thatshaking the solution after each dilution would imprintthe molecular “memory” of the original substance intothe solution, which would allow the diluted dose to beeffective without the possibility of overdose or adverse(75) side effects.Modern scientists have been unable to find anyevidence to support the theory of molecular memory. Infact, the idea that diluting a substance makes it strongerruns against the principles of chemistry and physics.(80) Moreover, scientists point to a lack of standardizedclinical data on homeopathic treatment. Clinical studiesthat do show effectiveness indicate that homeopathiccure rates are generally equal to those of placebos.Today, many conventional medical practitioners(85) generally disregard homeopathy. Homeopathic prac-titioners are frequently termed quacks by conven-tional scientists. Nevertheless, homeopathy remainsextremely popular both in the United States and abroad.In European countries such as France and England,(90) conventional doctors frequently prescribe homeopathictreatments for common illnesses such as colds and flu.Pharmacists who are trained to answer questions aboutthe homeopathic treatments’ use and desired effectsthen fill the prescriptions.Q.In the last paragraph, the author expresses which of the following beliefs about homeopathy?

Directions:Read the passages and choose the best answer to each question.PassageNATURAL SCIENCE: A Short History of HomeopathyHomeopathy is a system for treating physical dis-ease and other ailments using the theory of treating“like with like.” In practice, homeopathic medicineseeks substances that mimic an ailment’s symptoms;(5) this sameness is considered “likeness.” The substanceis then diluted to infinitesimal amounts and admin-istered to the patient in order to cure the problem.Homeopathic treatment is currently in use for every-thing from cancer to colds and flu, though many(10) scientists remain heavily skeptical about its efficacy.Homeopathy was developed in the late 18thcentury by the German medical doctor SamuelHahnemann. Despite being a physician himself,Hahnemann was deeply skeptical of the medical prac-(15) tices of his time. In general, 18th century medicinewas founded on the theory of the four temperaments,or “humors”: Choleric, Melancholic, Sanguine, andPhlegmatic. These temperaments were based on thevarious possible combinations of hot and cold and wet(20) and dry. A choleric, or angry, disposition meant thata person had a constitution that was essentially hotand dry. Phlegmatic, or unemotional, persons werethought to be cold and wet. Melancholy was caused byan excess of cold and dry, whereas Sanguine, or(25) passionate, persons were hot and wet.Humors theory was first developed by theGreek physician Hippocrates, the founder of westernmedicine, and later expanded upon by Galen. When aperson became ill, doctors believed it was because one(30) or more of the humors had come out of balance. Someof the best treatments were thought to be bloodlettingand purgation —the assumption being that these treat-ments would effectively drain off the excess humors.Other popular treatments included blistering plasters(35) and emetics. Often the treatment proved worse thanthe disease. Many patients died from excessive blood-loss or were poisoned by unregulated medications. Inthis environment, Hahnemann’s skepticism was wellwarranted.(40) Hahnemann first stumbled upon his theory whenhe was investigating a common treatment for malaria,cinchona bark. Modern scientists now know thatcinchona bark contains quinine—a substance still usedto treat malaria—but at the time, no one knew why(45) the bark was effective. Hahnemann chose to imple-ment the concept of treating “like with like” by testingan undiluted dose of the bark on himself. Finding thathe had symptoms similar to those of malaria sufferers,Hahnemann concluded that effective drugs must pro-(50) duce symptoms in healthy people that are similar tothose produced by the diseases that the drugs wouldbe expected to treat. Hahnemann further hypothesizedthat, while undiluted substances would only worsensymptoms in the sick, heavily diluted substances could(55) be effective for a cure. The doctor and his colleaguesthen proceeded to test a variety of substances to seewhat symptoms they induced, in the hopes of find-ing cures for diseases with similar symptoms. Perhapsnot surprisingly, Hahnemann’s new field of homeopa-(60) thy (i.e. “similar suffering”) was met with considerableresistance from doctors comfortable with their usualpractices.In fact, Hahnemann’s methodology for scien-tifically testing potential treatments was remarkably(65) modern. Nevertheless, his conclusions remain extraor-dinarily controversial. One of the main points ofcontention involves the standard homeopathic prac-tice of heavy dilution to create the appropriate doseof a substance. Dilution of homeopathic substances(70) happens in stages. Hahnemann had hypothesized thatshaking the solution after each dilution would imprintthe molecular “memory” of the original substance intothe solution, which would allow the diluted dose to beeffective without the possibility of overdose or adverse(75) side effects.Modern scientists have been unable to find anyevidence to support the theory of molecular memory. Infact, the idea that diluting a substance makes it strongerruns against the principles of chemistry and physics.(80) Moreover, scientists point to a lack of standardizedclinical data on homeopathic treatment. Clinical studiesthat do show effectiveness indicate that homeopathiccure rates are generally equal to those of placebos.Today, many conventional medical practitioners(85) generally disregard homeopathy. Homeopathic prac-titioners are frequently termed quacks by conven-tional scientists. Nevertheless, homeopathy remainsextremely popular both in the United States and abroad.In European countries such as France and England,(90) conventional doctors frequently prescribe homeopathictreatments for common illnesses such as colds and flu.Pharmacists who are trained to answer questions aboutthe homeopathic treatments’ use and desired effectsthen fill the prescriptions.Q.Information in the last paragraph indicates that

Directions:Read the passages and choose the best answer to each question.PassageNATURAL SCIENCE: A Short History of HomeopathyHomeopathy is a system for treating physical dis-ease and other ailments using the theory of treating“like with like.” In practice, homeopathic medicineseeks substances that mimic an ailment’s symptoms;(5) this sameness is considered “likeness.” The substanceis then diluted to infinitesimal amounts and admin-istered to the patient in order to cure the problem.Homeopathic treatment is currently in use for every-thing from cancer to colds and flu, though many(10) scientists remain heavily skeptical about its efficacy.Homeopathy was developed in the late 18thcentury by the German medical doctor SamuelHahnemann. Despite being a physician himself,Hahnemann was deeply skeptical of the medical prac-(15) tices of his time. In general, 18th century medicinewas founded on the theory of the four temperaments,or “humors”: Choleric, Melancholic, Sanguine, andPhlegmatic. These temperaments were based on thevarious possible combinations of hot and cold and wet(20) and dry. A choleric, or angry, disposition meant thata person had a constitution that was essentially hotand dry. Phlegmatic, or unemotional, persons werethought to be cold and wet. Melancholy was caused byan excess of cold and dry, whereas Sanguine, or(25) passionate, persons were hot and wet.Humors theory was first developed by theGreek physician Hippocrates, the founder of westernmedicine, and later expanded upon by Galen. When aperson became ill, doctors believed it was because one(30) or more of the humors had come out of balance. Someof the best treatments were thought to be bloodlettingand purgation —the assumption being that these treat-ments would effectively drain off the excess humors.Other popular treatments included blistering plasters(35) and emetics. Often the treatment proved worse thanthe disease. Many patients died from excessive blood-loss or were poisoned by unregulated medications. Inthis environment, Hahnemann’s skepticism was wellwarranted.(40) Hahnemann first stumbled upon his theory whenhe was investigating a common treatment for malaria,cinchona bark. Modern scientists now know thatcinchona bark contains quinine—a substance still usedto treat malaria—but at the time, no one knew why(45) the bark was effective. Hahnemann chose to imple-ment the concept of treating “like with like” by testingan undiluted dose of the bark on himself. Finding thathe had symptoms similar to those of malaria sufferers,Hahnemann concluded that effective drugs must pro-(50) duce symptoms in healthy people that are similar tothose produced by the diseases that the drugs wouldbe expected to treat. Hahnemann further hypothesizedthat, while undiluted substances would only worsensymptoms in the sick, heavily diluted substances could(55) be effective for a cure. The doctor and his colleaguesthen proceeded to test a variety of substances to seewhat symptoms they induced, in the hopes of find-ing cures for diseases with similar symptoms. Perhapsnot surprisingly, Hahnemann’s new field of homeopa-(60) thy (i.e. “similar suffering”) was met with considerableresistance from doctors comfortable with their usualpractices.In fact, Hahnemann’s methodology for scien-tifically testing potential treatments was remarkably(65) modern. Nevertheless, his conclusions remain extraor-dinarily controversial. One of the main points ofcontention involves the standard homeopathic prac-tice of heavy dilution to create the appropriate doseof a substance. Dilution of homeopathic substances(70) happens in stages. Hahnemann had hypothesized thatshaking the solution after each dilution would imprintthe molecular “memory” of the original substance intothe solution, which would allow the diluted dose to beeffective without the possibility of overdose or adverse(75) side effects.Modern scientists have been unable to find anyevidence to support the theory of molecular memory. Infact, the idea that diluting a substance makes it strongerruns against the principles of chemistry and physics.(80) Moreover, scientists point to a lack of standardizedclinical data on homeopathic treatment. Clinical studiesthat do show effectiveness indicate that homeopathiccure rates are generally equal to those of placebos.Today, many conventional medical practitioners(85) generally disregard homeopathy. Homeopathic prac-titioners are frequently termed quacks by conven-tional scientists. Nevertheless, homeopathy remainsextremely popular both in the United States and abroad.In European countries such as France and England,(90) conventional doctors frequently prescribe homeopathictreatments for common illnesses such as colds and flu.Pharmacists who are trained to answer questions aboutthe homeopathic treatments’ use and desired effectsthen fill the prescriptions.Q.Hahnemann believed cinchona bark was an effective treatment for malaria because it caused similar symptoms when taken by a healthy person. According to the fourth paragraph, what reason would a modern scientist likely give for using cinchona bark to treat malaria?

Directions:Read the passages and choose the best answer to each question.PassageNATURAL SCIENCE: A Short History of HomeopathyHomeopathy is a system for treating physical dis-ease and other ailments using the theory of treating“like with like.” In practice, homeopathic medicineseeks substances that mimic an ailment’s symptoms;(5) this sameness is considered “likeness.” The substanceis then diluted to infinitesimal amounts and admin-istered to the patient in order to cure the problem.Homeopathic treatment is currently in use for every-thing from cancer to colds and flu, though many(10) scientists remain heavily skeptical about its efficacy.Homeopathy was developed in the late 18thcentury by the German medical doctor SamuelHahnemann. Despite being a physician himself,Hahnemann was deeply skeptical of the medical prac-(15) tices of his time. In general, 18th century medicinewas founded on the theory of the four temperaments,or “humors”: Choleric, Melancholic, Sanguine, andPhlegmatic. These temperaments were based on thevarious possible combinations of hot and cold and wet(20) and dry. A choleric, or angry, disposition meant thata person had a constitution that was essentially hotand dry. Phlegmatic, or unemotional, persons werethought to be cold and wet. Melancholy was caused byan excess of cold and dry, whereas Sanguine, or(25) passionate, persons were hot and wet.Humors theory was first developed by theGreek physician Hippocrates, the founder of westernmedicine, and later expanded upon by Galen. When aperson became ill, doctors believed it was because one(30) or more of the humors had come out of balance. Someof the best treatments were thought to be bloodlettingand purgation —the assumption being that these treat-ments would effectively drain off the excess humors.Other popular treatments included blistering plasters(35) and emetics. Often the treatment proved worse thanthe disease. Many patients died from excessive blood-loss or were poisoned by unregulated medications. Inthis environment, Hahnemann’s skepticism was wellwarranted.(40) Hahnemann first stumbled upon his theory whenhe was investigating a common treatment for malaria,cinchona bark. Modern scientists now know thatcinchona bark contains quinine—a substance still usedto treat malaria—but at the time, no one knew why(45) the bark was effective. Hahnemann chose to imple-ment the concept of treating “like with like” by testingan undiluted dose of the bark on himself. Finding thathe had symptoms similar to those of malaria sufferers,Hahnemann concluded that effective drugs must pro-(50) duce symptoms in healthy people that are similar tothose produced by the diseases that the drugs wouldbe expected to treat. Hahnemann further hypothesizedthat, while undiluted substances would only worsensymptoms in the sick, heavily diluted substances could(55) be effective for a cure. The doctor and his colleaguesthen proceeded to test a variety of substances to seewhat symptoms they induced, in the hopes of find-ing cures for diseases with similar symptoms. Perhapsnot surprisingly, Hahnemann’s new field of homeopa-(60) thy (i.e. “similar suffering”) was met with considerableresistance from doctors comfortable with their usualpractices.In fact, Hahnemann’s methodology for scien-tifically testing potential treatments was remarkably(65) modern. Nevertheless, his conclusions remain extraor-dinarily controversial. One of the main points ofcontention involves the standard homeopathic prac-tice of heavy dilution to create the appropriate doseof a substance. Dilution of homeopathic substances(70) happens in stages. Hahnemann had hypothesized thatshaking the solution after each dilution would imprintthe molecular “memory” of the original substance intothe solution, which would allow the diluted dose to beeffective without the possibility of overdose or adverse(75) side effects.Modern scientists have been unable to find anyevidence to support the theory of molecular memory. Infact, the idea that diluting a substance makes it strongerruns against the principles of chemistry and physics.(80) Moreover, scientists point to a lack of standardizedclinical data on homeopathic treatment. Clinical studiesthat do show effectiveness indicate that homeopathiccure rates are generally equal to those of placebos.Today, many conventional medical practitioners(85) generally disregard homeopathy. Homeopathic prac-titioners are frequently termed quacks by conven-tional scientists. Nevertheless, homeopathy remainsextremely popular both in the United States and abroad.In European countries such as France and England,(90) conventional doctors frequently prescribe homeopathictreatments for common illnesses such as colds and flu.Pharmacists who are trained to answer questions aboutthe homeopathic treatments’ use and desired effectsthen fill the prescriptions.Q.According to the passage, why did Hahnemann use heavily diluted substances to treat patients?

Directions:Read the passages and choose the best answer to each question.PassageNATURAL SCIENCE: A Short History of HomeopathyHomeopathy is a system for treating physical dis-ease and other ailments using the theory of treating“like with like.” In practice, homeopathic medicineseeks substances that mimic an ailment’s symptoms;(5) this sameness is considered “likeness.” The substanceis then diluted to infinitesimal amounts and admin-istered to the patient in order to cure the problem.Homeopathic treatment is currently in use for every-thing from cancer to colds and flu, though many(10) scientists remain heavily skeptical about its efficacy.Homeopathy was developed in the late 18thcentury by the German medical doctor SamuelHahnemann. Despite being a physician himself,Hahnemann was deeply skeptical of the medical prac-(15) tices of his time. In general, 18th century medicinewas founded on the theory of the four temperaments,or “humors”: Choleric, Melancholic, Sanguine, andPhlegmatic. These temperaments were based on thevarious possible combinations of hot and cold and wet(20) and dry. A choleric, or angry, disposition meant thata person had a constitution that was essentially hotand dry. Phlegmatic, or unemotional, persons werethought to be cold and wet. Melancholy was caused byan excess of cold and dry, whereas Sanguine, or(25) passionate, persons were hot and wet.Humors theory was first developed by theGreek physician Hippocrates, the founder of westernmedicine, and later expanded upon by Galen. When aperson became ill, doctors believed it was because one(30) or more of the humors had come out of balance. Someof the best treatments were thought to be bloodlettingand purgation —the assumption being that these treat-ments would effectively drain off the excess humors.Other popular treatments included blistering plasters(35) and emetics. Often the treatment proved worse thanthe disease. Many patients died from excessive blood-loss or were poisoned by unregulated medications. Inthis environment, Hahnemann’s skepticism was wellwarranted.(40) Hahnemann first stumbled upon his theory whenhe was investigating a common treatment for malaria,cinchona bark. Modern scientists now know thatcinchona bark contains quinine—a substance still usedto treat malaria—but at the time, no one knew why(45) the bark was effective. Hahnemann chose to imple-ment the concept of treating “like with like” by testingan undiluted dose of the bark on himself. Finding thathe had symptoms similar to those of malaria sufferers,Hahnemann concluded that effective drugs must pro-(50) duce symptoms in healthy people that are similar tothose produced by the diseases that the drugs wouldbe expected to treat. Hahnemann further hypothesizedthat, while undiluted substances would only worsensymptoms in the sick, heavily diluted substances could(55) be effective for a cure. The doctor and his colleaguesthen proceeded to test a variety of substances to seewhat symptoms they induced, in the hopes of find-ing cures for diseases with similar symptoms. Perhapsnot surprisingly, Hahnemann’s new field of homeopa-(60) thy (i.e. “similar suffering”) was met with considerableresistance from doctors comfortable with their usualpractices.In fact, Hahnemann’s methodology for scien-tifically testing potential treatments was remarkably(65) modern. Nevertheless, his conclusions remain extraor-dinarily controversial. One of the main points ofcontention involves the standard homeopathic prac-tice of heavy dilution to create the appropriate doseof a substance. Dilution of homeopathic substances(70) happens in stages. Hahnemann had hypothesized thatshaking the solution after each dilution would imprintthe molecular “memory” of the original substance intothe solution, which would allow the diluted dose to beeffective without the possibility of overdose or adverse(75) side effects.Modern scientists have been unable to find anyevidence to support the theory of molecular memory. Infact, the idea that diluting a substance makes it strongerruns against the principles of chemistry and physics.(80) Moreover, scientists point to a lack of standardizedclinical data on homeopathic treatment. Clinical studiesthat do show effectiveness indicate that homeopathiccure rates are generally equal to those of placebos.Today, many conventional medical practitioners(85) generally disregard homeopathy. Homeopathic prac-titioners are frequently termed quacks by conven-tional scientists. Nevertheless, homeopathy remainsextremely popular both in the United States and abroad.In European countries such as France and England,(90) conventional doctors frequently prescribe homeopathictreatments for common illnesses such as colds and flu.Pharmacists who are trained to answer questions aboutthe homeopathic treatments’ use and desired effectsthen fill the prescriptions.Q.The passage indicates that, in the Middle Ages, illness was thought to be caused by an imbalance in the “humors” that was best treated by

Top Courses for ACTView all

Top Courses for ACT

Adapted fromWhat I Think and Feel at Twenty-Five(1922) by F. Scott FitzgeraldAs a man grows older it stands to reason that his vulnerability increases. Three years ago, for instance, I could be hurt in only one way—through myself. If my best friend’s wife had her hair torn off by an electric washing-machine, I was grieved, of course. I would make my friend a long speech full of “old mans,” and finish up with a paragraph from Washington’s Farewell Address; but when I’d finished I could go to a good restaurant and enjoy my dinner as usual. In fact I was pretty much invulnerable. I put up a conventional wail whenever a ship was sunk or a train got wrecked; but I don’t suppose, if the whole city of Chicago had been wiped out, I’d have lost a night’s sleep over it—unless something led me to believe that St. Paul was the next city on the list. Even then I could have moved my luggage over to Minneapolis and rested pretty comfortably all night.But that was three years ago when I was still a young man. I was only twenty-two. Now, I’m vulnerable. I’m vulnerable in every way. I used to have about ten square feet of skin vulnerable to chills and fevers. Now I have about twenty. I have not personally enlarged, the twenty feet includes the skin of my family, but I might as well have, because if a chill or fever strikes any bit of that twenty feet of skin I begin to shiver. And so I ooze gently into middle-age; for the true middle-age is not the acquirement of years, but the acquirement of a family. The incomes of the childless have wonderful elasticity. Two people require a room and a bath; a couple with child requires the millionaire’s suite on the sunny side of the hotel. And yet I think that marriage is the most satisfactory institution we have. I’m simply stating my belief that when Life has used us for its purposes it takes away all our attractive qualities and gives us, instead, ponderous but shallow convictions of our own wisdom and “experience.” The older I grow the more I get so I don’t know anything. If I had been asked to do this article about five years ago it might have been worth reading.Q. From the context of the whole passage, what can be inferred about the author’s opinions on the “wisdom and experience” of middle-age?a)It is illusory.b)It is necessary for individual growth.c)It is important for raising a family.d)It cannot replace good humor.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Adapted fromWhat I Think and Feel at Twenty-Five(1922) by F. Scott FitzgeraldAs a man grows older it stands to reason that his vulnerability increases. Three years ago, for instance, I could be hurt in only one way—through myself. If my best friend’s wife had her hair torn off by an electric washing-machine, I was grieved, of course. I would make my friend a long speech full of “old mans,” and finish up with a paragraph from Washington’s Farewell Address; but when I’d finished I could go to a good restaurant and enjoy my dinner as usual. In fact I was pretty much invulnerable. I put up a conventional wail whenever a ship was sunk or a train got wrecked; but I don’t suppose, if the whole city of Chicago had been wiped out, I’d have lost a night’s sleep over it—unless something led me to believe that St. Paul was the next city on the list. Even then I could have moved my luggage over to Minneapolis and rested pretty comfortably all night.But that was three years ago when I was still a young man. I was only twenty-two. Now, I’m vulnerable. I’m vulnerable in every way. I used to have about ten square feet of skin vulnerable to chills and fevers. Now I have about twenty. I have not personally enlarged, the twenty feet includes the skin of my family, but I might as well have, because if a chill or fever strikes any bit of that twenty feet of skin I begin to shiver. And so I ooze gently into middle-age; for the true middle-age is not the acquirement of years, but the acquirement of a family. The incomes of the childless have wonderful elasticity. Two people require a room and a bath; a couple with child requires the millionaire’s suite on the sunny side of the hotel. And yet I think that marriage is the most satisfactory institution we have. I’m simply stating my belief that when Life has used us for its purposes it takes away all our attractive qualities and gives us, instead, ponderous but shallow convictions of our own wisdom and “experience.” The older I grow the more I get so I don’t know anything. If I had been asked to do this article about five years ago it might have been worth reading.Q. From the context of the whole passage, what can be inferred about the author’s opinions on the “wisdom and experience” of middle-age?a)It is illusory.b)It is necessary for individual growth.c)It is important for raising a family.d)It cannot replace good humor.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for ACT 2025 is part of ACT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the ACT exam syllabus. Information about Adapted fromWhat I Think and Feel at Twenty-Five(1922) by F. Scott FitzgeraldAs a man grows older it stands to reason that his vulnerability increases. Three years ago, for instance, I could be hurt in only one way—through myself. If my best friend’s wife had her hair torn off by an electric washing-machine, I was grieved, of course. I would make my friend a long speech full of “old mans,” and finish up with a paragraph from Washington’s Farewell Address; but when I’d finished I could go to a good restaurant and enjoy my dinner as usual. In fact I was pretty much invulnerable. I put up a conventional wail whenever a ship was sunk or a train got wrecked; but I don’t suppose, if the whole city of Chicago had been wiped out, I’d have lost a night’s sleep over it—unless something led me to believe that St. Paul was the next city on the list. Even then I could have moved my luggage over to Minneapolis and rested pretty comfortably all night.But that was three years ago when I was still a young man. I was only twenty-two. Now, I’m vulnerable. I’m vulnerable in every way. I used to have about ten square feet of skin vulnerable to chills and fevers. Now I have about twenty. I have not personally enlarged, the twenty feet includes the skin of my family, but I might as well have, because if a chill or fever strikes any bit of that twenty feet of skin I begin to shiver. And so I ooze gently into middle-age; for the true middle-age is not the acquirement of years, but the acquirement of a family. The incomes of the childless have wonderful elasticity. Two people require a room and a bath; a couple with child requires the millionaire’s suite on the sunny side of the hotel. And yet I think that marriage is the most satisfactory institution we have. I’m simply stating my belief that when Life has used us for its purposes it takes away all our attractive qualities and gives us, instead, ponderous but shallow convictions of our own wisdom and “experience.” The older I grow the more I get so I don’t know anything. If I had been asked to do this article about five years ago it might have been worth reading.Q. From the context of the whole passage, what can be inferred about the author’s opinions on the “wisdom and experience” of middle-age?a)It is illusory.b)It is necessary for individual growth.c)It is important for raising a family.d)It cannot replace good humor.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for ACT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Adapted fromWhat I Think and Feel at Twenty-Five(1922) by F. Scott FitzgeraldAs a man grows older it stands to reason that his vulnerability increases. Three years ago, for instance, I could be hurt in only one way—through myself. If my best friend’s wife had her hair torn off by an electric washing-machine, I was grieved, of course. I would make my friend a long speech full of “old mans,” and finish up with a paragraph from Washington’s Farewell Address; but when I’d finished I could go to a good restaurant and enjoy my dinner as usual. In fact I was pretty much invulnerable. I put up a conventional wail whenever a ship was sunk or a train got wrecked; but I don’t suppose, if the whole city of Chicago had been wiped out, I’d have lost a night’s sleep over it—unless something led me to believe that St. Paul was the next city on the list. Even then I could have moved my luggage over to Minneapolis and rested pretty comfortably all night.But that was three years ago when I was still a young man. I was only twenty-two. Now, I’m vulnerable. I’m vulnerable in every way. I used to have about ten square feet of skin vulnerable to chills and fevers. Now I have about twenty. I have not personally enlarged, the twenty feet includes the skin of my family, but I might as well have, because if a chill or fever strikes any bit of that twenty feet of skin I begin to shiver. And so I ooze gently into middle-age; for the true middle-age is not the acquirement of years, but the acquirement of a family. The incomes of the childless have wonderful elasticity. Two people require a room and a bath; a couple with child requires the millionaire’s suite on the sunny side of the hotel. And yet I think that marriage is the most satisfactory institution we have. I’m simply stating my belief that when Life has used us for its purposes it takes away all our attractive qualities and gives us, instead, ponderous but shallow convictions of our own wisdom and “experience.” The older I grow the more I get so I don’t know anything. If I had been asked to do this article about five years ago it might have been worth reading.Q. From the context of the whole passage, what can be inferred about the author’s opinions on the “wisdom and experience” of middle-age?a)It is illusory.b)It is necessary for individual growth.c)It is important for raising a family.d)It cannot replace good humor.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Adapted fromWhat I Think and Feel at Twenty-Five(1922) by F. Scott FitzgeraldAs a man grows older it stands to reason that his vulnerability increases. Three years ago, for instance, I could be hurt in only one way—through myself. If my best friend’s wife had her hair torn off by an electric washing-machine, I was grieved, of course. I would make my friend a long speech full of “old mans,” and finish up with a paragraph from Washington’s Farewell Address; but when I’d finished I could go to a good restaurant and enjoy my dinner as usual. In fact I was pretty much invulnerable. I put up a conventional wail whenever a ship was sunk or a train got wrecked; but I don’t suppose, if the whole city of Chicago had been wiped out, I’d have lost a night’s sleep over it—unless something led me to believe that St. Paul was the next city on the list. Even then I could have moved my luggage over to Minneapolis and rested pretty comfortably all night.But that was three years ago when I was still a young man. I was only twenty-two. Now, I’m vulnerable. I’m vulnerable in every way. I used to have about ten square feet of skin vulnerable to chills and fevers. Now I have about twenty. I have not personally enlarged, the twenty feet includes the skin of my family, but I might as well have, because if a chill or fever strikes any bit of that twenty feet of skin I begin to shiver. And so I ooze gently into middle-age; for the true middle-age is not the acquirement of years, but the acquirement of a family. The incomes of the childless have wonderful elasticity. Two people require a room and a bath; a couple with child requires the millionaire’s suite on the sunny side of the hotel. And yet I think that marriage is the most satisfactory institution we have. I’m simply stating my belief that when Life has used us for its purposes it takes away all our attractive qualities and gives us, instead, ponderous but shallow convictions of our own wisdom and “experience.” The older I grow the more I get so I don’t know anything. If I had been asked to do this article about five years ago it might have been worth reading.Q. From the context of the whole passage, what can be inferred about the author’s opinions on the “wisdom and experience” of middle-age?a)It is illusory.b)It is necessary for individual growth.c)It is important for raising a family.d)It cannot replace good humor.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for ACT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for ACT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Adapted fromWhat I Think and Feel at Twenty-Five(1922) by F. Scott FitzgeraldAs a man grows older it stands to reason that his vulnerability increases. Three years ago, for instance, I could be hurt in only one way—through myself. If my best friend’s wife had her hair torn off by an electric washing-machine, I was grieved, of course. I would make my friend a long speech full of “old mans,” and finish up with a paragraph from Washington’s Farewell Address; but when I’d finished I could go to a good restaurant and enjoy my dinner as usual. In fact I was pretty much invulnerable. I put up a conventional wail whenever a ship was sunk or a train got wrecked; but I don’t suppose, if the whole city of Chicago had been wiped out, I’d have lost a night’s sleep over it—unless something led me to believe that St. Paul was the next city on the list. Even then I could have moved my luggage over to Minneapolis and rested pretty comfortably all night.But that was three years ago when I was still a young man. I was only twenty-two. Now, I’m vulnerable. I’m vulnerable in every way. I used to have about ten square feet of skin vulnerable to chills and fevers. Now I have about twenty. I have not personally enlarged, the twenty feet includes the skin of my family, but I might as well have, because if a chill or fever strikes any bit of that twenty feet of skin I begin to shiver. And so I ooze gently into middle-age; for the true middle-age is not the acquirement of years, but the acquirement of a family. The incomes of the childless have wonderful elasticity. Two people require a room and a bath; a couple with child requires the millionaire’s suite on the sunny side of the hotel. And yet I think that marriage is the most satisfactory institution we have. I’m simply stating my belief that when Life has used us for its purposes it takes away all our attractive qualities and gives us, instead, ponderous but shallow convictions of our own wisdom and “experience.” The older I grow the more I get so I don’t know anything. If I had been asked to do this article about five years ago it might have been worth reading.Q. From the context of the whole passage, what can be inferred about the author’s opinions on the “wisdom and experience” of middle-age?a)It is illusory.b)It is necessary for individual growth.c)It is important for raising a family.d)It cannot replace good humor.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Adapted fromWhat I Think and Feel at Twenty-Five(1922) by F. Scott FitzgeraldAs a man grows older it stands to reason that his vulnerability increases. Three years ago, for instance, I could be hurt in only one way—through myself. If my best friend’s wife had her hair torn off by an electric washing-machine, I was grieved, of course. I would make my friend a long speech full of “old mans,” and finish up with a paragraph from Washington’s Farewell Address; but when I’d finished I could go to a good restaurant and enjoy my dinner as usual. In fact I was pretty much invulnerable. I put up a conventional wail whenever a ship was sunk or a train got wrecked; but I don’t suppose, if the whole city of Chicago had been wiped out, I’d have lost a night’s sleep over it—unless something led me to believe that St. Paul was the next city on the list. Even then I could have moved my luggage over to Minneapolis and rested pretty comfortably all night.But that was three years ago when I was still a young man. I was only twenty-two. Now, I’m vulnerable. I’m vulnerable in every way. I used to have about ten square feet of skin vulnerable to chills and fevers. Now I have about twenty. I have not personally enlarged, the twenty feet includes the skin of my family, but I might as well have, because if a chill or fever strikes any bit of that twenty feet of skin I begin to shiver. And so I ooze gently into middle-age; for the true middle-age is not the acquirement of years, but the acquirement of a family. The incomes of the childless have wonderful elasticity. Two people require a room and a bath; a couple with child requires the millionaire’s suite on the sunny side of the hotel. And yet I think that marriage is the most satisfactory institution we have. I’m simply stating my belief that when Life has used us for its purposes it takes away all our attractive qualities and gives us, instead, ponderous but shallow convictions of our own wisdom and “experience.” The older I grow the more I get so I don’t know anything. If I had been asked to do this article about five years ago it might have been worth reading.Q. From the context of the whole passage, what can be inferred about the author’s opinions on the “wisdom and experience” of middle-age?a)It is illusory.b)It is necessary for individual growth.c)It is important for raising a family.d)It cannot replace good humor.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Adapted fromWhat I Think and Feel at Twenty-Five(1922) by F. Scott FitzgeraldAs a man grows older it stands to reason that his vulnerability increases. Three years ago, for instance, I could be hurt in only one way—through myself. If my best friend’s wife had her hair torn off by an electric washing-machine, I was grieved, of course. I would make my friend a long speech full of “old mans,” and finish up with a paragraph from Washington’s Farewell Address; but when I’d finished I could go to a good restaurant and enjoy my dinner as usual. In fact I was pretty much invulnerable. I put up a conventional wail whenever a ship was sunk or a train got wrecked; but I don’t suppose, if the whole city of Chicago had been wiped out, I’d have lost a night’s sleep over it—unless something led me to believe that St. Paul was the next city on the list. Even then I could have moved my luggage over to Minneapolis and rested pretty comfortably all night.But that was three years ago when I was still a young man. I was only twenty-two. Now, I’m vulnerable. I’m vulnerable in every way. I used to have about ten square feet of skin vulnerable to chills and fevers. Now I have about twenty. I have not personally enlarged, the twenty feet includes the skin of my family, but I might as well have, because if a chill or fever strikes any bit of that twenty feet of skin I begin to shiver. And so I ooze gently into middle-age; for the true middle-age is not the acquirement of years, but the acquirement of a family. The incomes of the childless have wonderful elasticity. Two people require a room and a bath; a couple with child requires the millionaire’s suite on the sunny side of the hotel. And yet I think that marriage is the most satisfactory institution we have. I’m simply stating my belief that when Life has used us for its purposes it takes away all our attractive qualities and gives us, instead, ponderous but shallow convictions of our own wisdom and “experience.” The older I grow the more I get so I don’t know anything. If I had been asked to do this article about five years ago it might have been worth reading.Q. From the context of the whole passage, what can be inferred about the author’s opinions on the “wisdom and experience” of middle-age?a)It is illusory.b)It is necessary for individual growth.c)It is important for raising a family.d)It cannot replace good humor.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Adapted fromWhat I Think and Feel at Twenty-Five(1922) by F. Scott FitzgeraldAs a man grows older it stands to reason that his vulnerability increases. Three years ago, for instance, I could be hurt in only one way—through myself. If my best friend’s wife had her hair torn off by an electric washing-machine, I was grieved, of course. I would make my friend a long speech full of “old mans,” and finish up with a paragraph from Washington’s Farewell Address; but when I’d finished I could go to a good restaurant and enjoy my dinner as usual. In fact I was pretty much invulnerable. I put up a conventional wail whenever a ship was sunk or a train got wrecked; but I don’t suppose, if the whole city of Chicago had been wiped out, I’d have lost a night’s sleep over it—unless something led me to believe that St. Paul was the next city on the list. Even then I could have moved my luggage over to Minneapolis and rested pretty comfortably all night.But that was three years ago when I was still a young man. I was only twenty-two. Now, I’m vulnerable. I’m vulnerable in every way. I used to have about ten square feet of skin vulnerable to chills and fevers. Now I have about twenty. I have not personally enlarged, the twenty feet includes the skin of my family, but I might as well have, because if a chill or fever strikes any bit of that twenty feet of skin I begin to shiver. And so I ooze gently into middle-age; for the true middle-age is not the acquirement of years, but the acquirement of a family. The incomes of the childless have wonderful elasticity. Two people require a room and a bath; a couple with child requires the millionaire’s suite on the sunny side of the hotel. And yet I think that marriage is the most satisfactory institution we have. I’m simply stating my belief that when Life has used us for its purposes it takes away all our attractive qualities and gives us, instead, ponderous but shallow convictions of our own wisdom and “experience.” The older I grow the more I get so I don’t know anything. If I had been asked to do this article about five years ago it might have been worth reading.Q. From the context of the whole passage, what can be inferred about the author’s opinions on the “wisdom and experience” of middle-age?a)It is illusory.b)It is necessary for individual growth.c)It is important for raising a family.d)It cannot replace good humor.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Adapted fromWhat I Think and Feel at Twenty-Five(1922) by F. Scott FitzgeraldAs a man grows older it stands to reason that his vulnerability increases. Three years ago, for instance, I could be hurt in only one way—through myself. If my best friend’s wife had her hair torn off by an electric washing-machine, I was grieved, of course. I would make my friend a long speech full of “old mans,” and finish up with a paragraph from Washington’s Farewell Address; but when I’d finished I could go to a good restaurant and enjoy my dinner as usual. In fact I was pretty much invulnerable. I put up a conventional wail whenever a ship was sunk or a train got wrecked; but I don’t suppose, if the whole city of Chicago had been wiped out, I’d have lost a night’s sleep over it—unless something led me to believe that St. Paul was the next city on the list. Even then I could have moved my luggage over to Minneapolis and rested pretty comfortably all night.But that was three years ago when I was still a young man. I was only twenty-two. Now, I’m vulnerable. I’m vulnerable in every way. I used to have about ten square feet of skin vulnerable to chills and fevers. Now I have about twenty. I have not personally enlarged, the twenty feet includes the skin of my family, but I might as well have, because if a chill or fever strikes any bit of that twenty feet of skin I begin to shiver. And so I ooze gently into middle-age; for the true middle-age is not the acquirement of years, but the acquirement of a family. The incomes of the childless have wonderful elasticity. Two people require a room and a bath; a couple with child requires the millionaire’s suite on the sunny side of the hotel. And yet I think that marriage is the most satisfactory institution we have. I’m simply stating my belief that when Life has used us for its purposes it takes away all our attractive qualities and gives us, instead, ponderous but shallow convictions of our own wisdom and “experience.” The older I grow the more I get so I don’t know anything. If I had been asked to do this article about five years ago it might have been worth reading.Q. From the context of the whole passage, what can be inferred about the author’s opinions on the “wisdom and experience” of middle-age?a)It is illusory.b)It is necessary for individual growth.c)It is important for raising a family.d)It cannot replace good humor.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice ACT tests.
Explore Courses for ACT exam

Top Courses for ACT

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