Question Description
PASSAGE:At the time Jane Austen’s novels were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s power”.These attitudes towards novels help explain why Ausjten received little attention from early nineteenth century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience, “ for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen;’s fiction. Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to the reader an accurate and exact. picture of ordinary everyday people and places, reminiscent of seventeenth –century Flemish painting. “ Scott did not use the word “realistic probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our own” Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately especially praised Austen’s ability to create characters who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and virtue, as in life they are always mingled. “Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Sicken’s, stating his preference for Austin’s. often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes’ complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them, Austen’s steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.Q. The passage suggests that twentieth century Marxists would have admired Jane Austen’s noels more if the novels, a he Marxists understood them, hada)described the values of upper-middle class societyb)avoided moral instruction and sermonizingc)depicted ordinary society in a more flattering light portrayed characters from more than one class of societyd)portrayed characters from more than one class of societye)anticipated some of controversial social problems of the twentieth century.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for GRE 2024 is part of GRE preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GRE exam syllabus. Information about PASSAGE:At the time Jane Austen’s novels were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s power”.These attitudes towards novels help explain why Ausjten received little attention from early nineteenth century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience, “ for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen;’s fiction. Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to the reader an accurate and exact. picture of ordinary everyday people and places, reminiscent of seventeenth –century Flemish painting. “ Scott did not use the word “realistic probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our own” Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately especially praised Austen’s ability to create characters who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and virtue, as in life they are always mingled. “Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Sicken’s, stating his preference for Austin’s. often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes’ complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them, Austen’s steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.Q. The passage suggests that twentieth century Marxists would have admired Jane Austen’s noels more if the novels, a he Marxists understood them, hada)described the values of upper-middle class societyb)avoided moral instruction and sermonizingc)depicted ordinary society in a more flattering light portrayed characters from more than one class of societyd)portrayed characters from more than one class of societye)anticipated some of controversial social problems of the twentieth century.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GRE 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for PASSAGE:At the time Jane Austen’s novels were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s power”.These attitudes towards novels help explain why Ausjten received little attention from early nineteenth century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience, “ for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen;’s fiction. Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to the reader an accurate and exact. picture of ordinary everyday people and places, reminiscent of seventeenth –century Flemish painting. “ Scott did not use the word “realistic probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our own” Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately especially praised Austen’s ability to create characters who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and virtue, as in life they are always mingled. “Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Sicken’s, stating his preference for Austin’s. often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes’ complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them, Austen’s steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.Q. The passage suggests that twentieth century Marxists would have admired Jane Austen’s noels more if the novels, a he Marxists understood them, hada)described the values of upper-middle class societyb)avoided moral instruction and sermonizingc)depicted ordinary society in a more flattering light portrayed characters from more than one class of societyd)portrayed characters from more than one class of societye)anticipated some of controversial social problems of the twentieth century.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for PASSAGE:At the time Jane Austen’s novels were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s power”.These attitudes towards novels help explain why Ausjten received little attention from early nineteenth century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience, “ for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen;’s fiction. Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to the reader an accurate and exact. picture of ordinary everyday people and places, reminiscent of seventeenth –century Flemish painting. “ Scott did not use the word “realistic probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our own” Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately especially praised Austen’s ability to create characters who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and virtue, as in life they are always mingled. “Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Sicken’s, stating his preference for Austin’s. often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes’ complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them, Austen’s steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.Q. The passage suggests that twentieth century Marxists would have admired Jane Austen’s noels more if the novels, a he Marxists understood them, hada)described the values of upper-middle class societyb)avoided moral instruction and sermonizingc)depicted ordinary society in a more flattering light portrayed characters from more than one class of societyd)portrayed characters from more than one class of societye)anticipated some of controversial social problems of the twentieth century.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GRE. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GRE Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of PASSAGE:At the time Jane Austen’s novels were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s power”.These attitudes towards novels help explain why Ausjten received little attention from early nineteenth century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience, “ for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen;’s fiction. Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to the reader an accurate and exact. picture of ordinary everyday people and places, reminiscent of seventeenth –century Flemish painting. “ Scott did not use the word “realistic probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our own” Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately especially praised Austen’s ability to create characters who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and virtue, as in life they are always mingled. “Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Sicken’s, stating his preference for Austin’s. often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes’ complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them, Austen’s steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.Q. The passage suggests that twentieth century Marxists would have admired Jane Austen’s noels more if the novels, a he Marxists understood them, hada)described the values of upper-middle class societyb)avoided moral instruction and sermonizingc)depicted ordinary society in a more flattering light portrayed characters from more than one class of societyd)portrayed characters from more than one class of societye)anticipated some of controversial social problems of the twentieth century.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of PASSAGE:At the time Jane Austen’s novels were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s power”.These attitudes towards novels help explain why Ausjten received little attention from early nineteenth century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience, “ for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen;’s fiction. Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to the reader an accurate and exact. picture of ordinary everyday people and places, reminiscent of seventeenth –century Flemish painting. “ Scott did not use the word “realistic probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our own” Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately especially praised Austen’s ability to create characters who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and virtue, as in life they are always mingled. “Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Sicken’s, stating his preference for Austin’s. often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes’ complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them, Austen’s steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.Q. The passage suggests that twentieth century Marxists would have admired Jane Austen’s noels more if the novels, a he Marxists understood them, hada)described the values of upper-middle class societyb)avoided moral instruction and sermonizingc)depicted ordinary society in a more flattering light portrayed characters from more than one class of societyd)portrayed characters from more than one class of societye)anticipated some of controversial social problems of the twentieth century.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for PASSAGE:At the time Jane Austen’s novels were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s power”.These attitudes towards novels help explain why Ausjten received little attention from early nineteenth century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience, “ for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen;’s fiction. Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to the reader an accurate and exact. picture of ordinary everyday people and places, reminiscent of seventeenth –century Flemish painting. “ Scott did not use the word “realistic probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our own” Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately especially praised Austen’s ability to create characters who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and virtue, as in life they are always mingled. “Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Sicken’s, stating his preference for Austin’s. often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes’ complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them, Austen’s steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.Q. The passage suggests that twentieth century Marxists would have admired Jane Austen’s noels more if the novels, a he Marxists understood them, hada)described the values of upper-middle class societyb)avoided moral instruction and sermonizingc)depicted ordinary society in a more flattering light portrayed characters from more than one class of societyd)portrayed characters from more than one class of societye)anticipated some of controversial social problems of the twentieth century.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of PASSAGE:At the time Jane Austen’s novels were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s power”.These attitudes towards novels help explain why Ausjten received little attention from early nineteenth century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience, “ for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen;’s fiction. Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to the reader an accurate and exact. picture of ordinary everyday people and places, reminiscent of seventeenth –century Flemish painting. “ Scott did not use the word “realistic probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our own” Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately especially praised Austen’s ability to create characters who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and virtue, as in life they are always mingled. “Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Sicken’s, stating his preference for Austin’s. often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes’ complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them, Austen’s steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.Q. The passage suggests that twentieth century Marxists would have admired Jane Austen’s noels more if the novels, a he Marxists understood them, hada)described the values of upper-middle class societyb)avoided moral instruction and sermonizingc)depicted ordinary society in a more flattering light portrayed characters from more than one class of societyd)portrayed characters from more than one class of societye)anticipated some of controversial social problems of the twentieth century.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice PASSAGE:At the time Jane Austen’s novels were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s power”.These attitudes towards novels help explain why Ausjten received little attention from early nineteenth century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience, “ for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen;’s fiction. Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to the reader an accurate and exact. picture of ordinary everyday people and places, reminiscent of seventeenth –century Flemish painting. “ Scott did not use the word “realistic probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our own” Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately especially praised Austen’s ability to create characters who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and virtue, as in life they are always mingled. “Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Sicken’s, stating his preference for Austin’s. often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes’ complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them, Austen’s steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.Q. The passage suggests that twentieth century Marxists would have admired Jane Austen’s noels more if the novels, a he Marxists understood them, hada)described the values of upper-middle class societyb)avoided moral instruction and sermonizingc)depicted ordinary society in a more flattering light portrayed characters from more than one class of societyd)portrayed characters from more than one class of societye)anticipated some of controversial social problems of the twentieth century.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GRE tests.