SAT Exam > SAT Questions > Question based on the following passages.Pass...
Start Learning for Free
Question based on the following passages.
Passage 1 is adapted from an essay written by John Aldridge in 1951. ©1951 by John Aldridge. Passage 2 is adapted from Brom Weber, "Ernest Hemingway's Genteel Bullfight," published in The American Novel and the Nineteen Twenties. ©1971 by Hodder Education.
Passage 1
By the time we were old enough to read
Hemingway, he had become legendary. Like
Lord Byron a century earlier, he had learned
to play himself, his own best hero, with superb
(5) conviction. He was Hemingway of the rugged
outdoor grin and the hairy chest posing beside a
lion he had just shot. He was Tarzan Hemingway,
crouching in the African bush with elephant gun
at ready. He was War Correspondent Hemingway
(10) writing a play in the Hotel Florida in Madrid
while thirty fascist shells crashed through
the roof. Later, he was Task Force Hemingway
swathed in ammunition belts and defending
his post singlehandedly against fierce German
(15) attacks.
But even without the legend, the chest
beating, wisecracking pose that was later to
seem so incredibly absurd, his impact upon us
was tremendous. The feeling he gave us was one
(20) of immense expansiveness, freedom and, at the
same time, absolute stability and control. We
could follow him, imitate his cold detachment,
through all the doubts and fears of adolescence
and come out pure and untouched. The words
(25) he put down seemed to us to have been carved
from the living stone of life. They conveyed
exactly the taste, smell and feel of experience as
it was, as it might possibly be. And so we began
unconsciously to translate our own sensations
(30) into their terms and to impose on everything
we did and felt the particular emotions they
aroused in us.
The Hemingway time was a good time to
be young. We had much then that the war later
(35) forced out of us, something far greater than
Hemingway's strong formative influence.
Later writers who lost or got rid of Hemingway
have been able to find nothing to put in his
place. They have rejected his time as untrue
(40) for them only to fail at finding themselves in their
own time. Others, in their embarrassment at the
hold he once had over them, have not profited
by the lessons he had to teach, and still others
were never touched by him at all. These last are
(45) perhaps the real unfortunates, for they have been
denied access to a powerful tradition.
Passage 2
One wonders why Hemingway's greatest
works now seem unable to evoke the same sense
of a tottering world that in the 1920s established
(50) Ernest Hemingway's reputation. These novels
should be speaking to us. Our social structure
is as shaken, our philosophical despair as great,
our everyday experience as unsatisfying. We have
had more war than Hemingway ever dreamed
(55) of. Our violence—physical, emotional, and
intellectual—is not inferior to that of the 1920s.
Yet Hemingway's great novels no longer seem to
penetrate deeply the surface of existence.
One begins to doubt that they ever did so significantly
(60) in the 1920s.
Hemingway's novels indulged the dominant
genteel tradition in American culture while
seeming to repudiate it. They yielded to the
functionalist, technological aesthetic of the
(65) culture instead of resisting in the manner of
Frank Lloyd Wright. Hemingway, in effect, became a
dupe of his culture rather than its moral-aesthetic
conscience. As a consequence, the import of his
work has diminished. There is some evidence
(70) from his stylistic evolution that Hemingway
himself must have felt as much, for Hemingway's
famous stylistic economy frequently seems to
conceal another kind of writer, with much richer
rhetorical resources to hand. So, Death in the
(75) Afternoon (1932), Hemingway's bullfighting
opus and his first book after A Farewell to Arms
(1929), reveals great uneasiness over his earlier
accomplishment. In it, he defends his literary
method with a doctrine of ambiguity: “If a writer
(80) of prose knows enough about what he is writing
about he may omit things that he knows and
the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough,
will have a feeling of those things as strongly as
though the writer had stated them.”
(85) Hemingway made much the same theoretical
point in another way in Death in the Afternoon
apparently believing that a formal reduction of
aesthetic complexity was the only kind of design
that had value.
(90) Perhaps the greatest irony of Death in the
Afternoon is its unmistakably baroque prose,
which Hemingway himself embarrassedly
admitted was “flowery.” Reviewers, unable to
challenge Hemingway's expertise in the art of
(95) bullfighting, noted that its style was “awkward,
tortuous, [and] belligerently clumsy.”
Death in the Afternoon is an extraordinarily
self-indulgent, unruly, clownish, garrulous,
and satiric book, with scrambled chronologies,
(100) willful digressions, mock-scholarly apparatuses,
fictional interludes, and scathing allusions. Its
inflated style can hardly penetrate the fagade, let
alone deflate humanity.
Passage 1 is adapted from an essay written by John Aldridge in 1951. ©1951 by John Aldridge. Passage 2 is adapted from Brom Weber, "Ernest Hemingway's Genteel Bullfight," published in The American Novel and the Nineteen Twenties. ©1971 by Hodder Education.
Passage 1
By the time we were old enough to read
Hemingway, he had become legendary. Like
Lord Byron a century earlier, he had learned
to play himself, his own best hero, with superb
(5) conviction. He was Hemingway of the rugged
outdoor grin and the hairy chest posing beside a
lion he had just shot. He was Tarzan Hemingway,
crouching in the African bush with elephant gun
at ready. He was War Correspondent Hemingway
(10) writing a play in the Hotel Florida in Madrid
while thirty fascist shells crashed through
the roof. Later, he was Task Force Hemingway
swathed in ammunition belts and defending
his post singlehandedly against fierce German
(15) attacks.
But even without the legend, the chest
beating, wisecracking pose that was later to
seem so incredibly absurd, his impact upon us
was tremendous. The feeling he gave us was one
(20) of immense expansiveness, freedom and, at the
same time, absolute stability and control. We
could follow him, imitate his cold detachment,
through all the doubts and fears of adolescence
and come out pure and untouched. The words
(25) he put down seemed to us to have been carved
from the living stone of life. They conveyed
exactly the taste, smell and feel of experience as
it was, as it might possibly be. And so we began
unconsciously to translate our own sensations
(30) into their terms and to impose on everything
we did and felt the particular emotions they
aroused in us.
The Hemingway time was a good time to
be young. We had much then that the war later
(35) forced out of us, something far greater than
Hemingway's strong formative influence.
Later writers who lost or got rid of Hemingway
have been able to find nothing to put in his
place. They have rejected his time as untrue
(40) for them only to fail at finding themselves in their
own time. Others, in their embarrassment at the
hold he once had over them, have not profited
by the lessons he had to teach, and still others
were never touched by him at all. These last are
(45) perhaps the real unfortunates, for they have been
denied access to a powerful tradition.
Passage 2
One wonders why Hemingway's greatest
works now seem unable to evoke the same sense
of a tottering world that in the 1920s established
(50) Ernest Hemingway's reputation. These novels
should be speaking to us. Our social structure
is as shaken, our philosophical despair as great,
our everyday experience as unsatisfying. We have
had more war than Hemingway ever dreamed
(55) of. Our violence—physical, emotional, and
intellectual—is not inferior to that of the 1920s.
Yet Hemingway's great novels no longer seem to
penetrate deeply the surface of existence.
One begins to doubt that they ever did so significantly
(60) in the 1920s.
Hemingway's novels indulged the dominant
genteel tradition in American culture while
seeming to repudiate it. They yielded to the
functionalist, technological aesthetic of the
(65) culture instead of resisting in the manner of
Frank Lloyd Wright. Hemingway, in effect, became a
dupe of his culture rather than its moral-aesthetic
conscience. As a consequence, the import of his
work has diminished. There is some evidence
(70) from his stylistic evolution that Hemingway
himself must have felt as much, for Hemingway's
famous stylistic economy frequently seems to
conceal another kind of writer, with much richer
rhetorical resources to hand. So, Death in the
(75) Afternoon (1932), Hemingway's bullfighting
opus and his first book after A Farewell to Arms
(1929), reveals great uneasiness over his earlier
accomplishment. In it, he defends his literary
method with a doctrine of ambiguity: “If a writer
(80) of prose knows enough about what he is writing
about he may omit things that he knows and
the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough,
will have a feeling of those things as strongly as
though the writer had stated them.”
(85) Hemingway made much the same theoretical
point in another way in Death in the Afternoon
apparently believing that a formal reduction of
aesthetic complexity was the only kind of design
that had value.
(90) Perhaps the greatest irony of Death in the
Afternoon is its unmistakably baroque prose,
which Hemingway himself embarrassedly
admitted was “flowery.” Reviewers, unable to
challenge Hemingway's expertise in the art of
(95) bullfighting, noted that its style was “awkward,
tortuous, [and] belligerently clumsy.”
Death in the Afternoon is an extraordinarily
self-indulgent, unruly, clownish, garrulous,
and satiric book, with scrambled chronologies,
(100) willful digressions, mock-scholarly apparatuses,
fictional interludes, and scathing allusions. Its
inflated style can hardly penetrate the fagade, let
alone deflate humanity.
Q. Which statement provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?
- a)Lines 2–5 (“Like Lord . . . superb conviction”)
- b)Lines 28–32 (“And so . . . aroused in us”)
- c)Lines 34–36 (“We had much . . . formative influence”)
- d)Lines 39–41 (“They have rejected . . . own time”)
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
Question based on the following passages.Passage 1 is adapted from an ...
The best evidence for this answer comes from lines 28-32, where the author of Passage 1 says that we began to unconsciously translate our own sensations into their terms and to impose on everything we did and felt the particular emotions they aroused in us. In other words, Hemingway was in fact a kind of moral-aesthetic conscience for the author of Passage 1 and his friends.
|
Explore Courses for SAT exam
|
|
Top Courses for SATView all
Question based on the following passages.Passage 1 is adapted from an essay written by John Aldridge in 1951. ©1951 by John Aldridge. Passage 2 is adapted from Brom Weber, "Ernest Hemingways Genteel Bullfight," published in The American Novel and the Nineteen Twenties. ©1971 by Hodder Education.Passage 1By the time we were old enough to readHemingway, he had become legendary. LikeLord Byron a century earlier, he had learnedto play himself, his own best hero, with superb(5) conviction. He was Hemingway of the ruggedoutdoor grin and the hairy chest posing beside alion he had just shot. He was Tarzan Hemingway,crouching in the African bush with elephant gunat ready. He was War Correspondent Hemingway(10) writing a play in the Hotel Florida in Madridwhile thirty fascist shells crashed throughthe roof. Later, he was Task Force Hemingwayswathed in ammunition belts and defendinghis post singlehandedly against fierce German(15) attacks.But even without the legend, the chestbeating, wisecracking pose that was later toseem so incredibly absurd, his impact upon uswas tremendous. The feeling he gave us was one(20) of immense expansiveness, freedom and, at thesame time, absolute stability and control. Wecould follow him, imitate his cold detachment,through all the doubts and fears of adolescenceand come out pure and untouched. The words(25) he put down seemed to us to have been carvedfrom the living stone of life. They conveyedexactly the taste, smell and feel of experience asit was, as it might possibly be. And so we beganunconsciously to translate our own sensations(30) into their terms and to impose on everythingwe did and felt the particular emotions theyaroused in us.The Hemingway time was a good time tobe young. We had much then that the war later(35) forced out of us, something far greater thanHemingways strong formative influence.Later writers who lost or got rid of Hemingwayhave been able to find nothing to put in hisplace. They have rejected his time as untrue(40) for them only to fail at finding themselves in theirown time. Others, in their embarrassment at thehold he once had over them, have not profitedby the lessons he had to teach, and still otherswere never touched by him at all. These last are(45) perhaps the real unfortunates, for they have beendenied access to a powerful tradition.Passage 2One wonders why Hemingways greatestworks now seem unable to evoke the same senseof a tottering world that in the 1920s established(50) Ernest Hemingways reputation. These novelsshould be speaking to us. Our social structureis as shaken, our philosophical despair as great,our everyday experience as unsatisfying. We havehad more war than Hemingway ever dreamed(55) of. Our violence—physical, emotional, andintellectual—is not inferior to that of the 1920s.Yet Hemingways great novels no longer seem topenetrate deeply the surface of existence.One begins to doubt that they ever did so significantly(60) in the 1920s.Hemingways novels indulged the dominantgenteel tradition in American culture whileseeming to repudiate it. They yielded to thefunctionalist, technological aesthetic of the(65) culture instead of resisting in the manner ofFrank Lloyd Wright. Hemingway, in effect, became adupe of his culture rather than its moral-aestheticconscience. As a consequence, the import of hiswork has diminished. There is some evidence(70) from his stylistic evolution that Hemingwayhimself must have felt as much, for Hemingwaysfamous stylistic economy frequently seems toconceal another kind of writer, with much richerrhetorical resources to hand. So, Death in the(75) Afternoon (1932), Hemingways bullfightingopus and his first book after A Farewell to Arms(1929), reveals great uneasiness over his earlieraccomplishment. In it, he defends his literarymethod with a doctrine of ambiguity: “If a writer(80) of prose knows enough about what he is writingabout he may omit things that he knows andthe reader, if the writer is writing truly enough,will have a feeling of those things as strongly asthough the writer had stated them.”(85) Hemingway made much the same theoreticalpoint in another way in Death in the Afternoonapparently believing that a formal reduction ofaesthetic complexity was the only kind of designthat had value.(90) Perhaps the greatest irony of Death in theAfternoon is its unmistakably baroque prose,which Hemingway himself embarrassedlyadmitted was “flowery.” Reviewers, unable tochallenge Hemingways expertise in the art of(95) bullfighting, noted that its style was “awkward,tortuous, [and] belligerently clumsy.”Death in the Afternoon is an extraordinarilyself-indulgent, unruly, clownish, garrulous,and satiric book, with scrambled chronologies,(100) willful digressions, mock-scholarly apparatuses,fictional interludes, and scathing allusions. Itsinflated style can hardly penetrate the fagade, letalone deflate humanity.Q.Which statement provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?a)Lines 2–5 (“Like Lord . . . superb conviction”)b)Lines 28–32 (“And so . . . aroused in us”)c)Lines 34–36 (“We had much . . . formative influence”)d)Lines 39–41 (“They have rejected . . . own time”)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Question based on the following passages.Passage 1 is adapted from an essay written by John Aldridge in 1951. ©1951 by John Aldridge. Passage 2 is adapted from Brom Weber, "Ernest Hemingways Genteel Bullfight," published in The American Novel and the Nineteen Twenties. ©1971 by Hodder Education.Passage 1By the time we were old enough to readHemingway, he had become legendary. LikeLord Byron a century earlier, he had learnedto play himself, his own best hero, with superb(5) conviction. He was Hemingway of the ruggedoutdoor grin and the hairy chest posing beside alion he had just shot. He was Tarzan Hemingway,crouching in the African bush with elephant gunat ready. He was War Correspondent Hemingway(10) writing a play in the Hotel Florida in Madridwhile thirty fascist shells crashed throughthe roof. Later, he was Task Force Hemingwayswathed in ammunition belts and defendinghis post singlehandedly against fierce German(15) attacks.But even without the legend, the chestbeating, wisecracking pose that was later toseem so incredibly absurd, his impact upon uswas tremendous. The feeling he gave us was one(20) of immense expansiveness, freedom and, at thesame time, absolute stability and control. Wecould follow him, imitate his cold detachment,through all the doubts and fears of adolescenceand come out pure and untouched. The words(25) he put down seemed to us to have been carvedfrom the living stone of life. They conveyedexactly the taste, smell and feel of experience asit was, as it might possibly be. And so we beganunconsciously to translate our own sensations(30) into their terms and to impose on everythingwe did and felt the particular emotions theyaroused in us.The Hemingway time was a good time tobe young. We had much then that the war later(35) forced out of us, something far greater thanHemingways strong formative influence.Later writers who lost or got rid of Hemingwayhave been able to find nothing to put in hisplace. They have rejected his time as untrue(40) for them only to fail at finding themselves in theirown time. Others, in their embarrassment at thehold he once had over them, have not profitedby the lessons he had to teach, and still otherswere never touched by him at all. These last are(45) perhaps the real unfortunates, for they have beendenied access to a powerful tradition.Passage 2One wonders why Hemingways greatestworks now seem unable to evoke the same senseof a tottering world that in the 1920s established(50) Ernest Hemingways reputation. These novelsshould be speaking to us. Our social structureis as shaken, our philosophical despair as great,our everyday experience as unsatisfying. We havehad more war than Hemingway ever dreamed(55) of. Our violence—physical, emotional, andintellectual—is not inferior to that of the 1920s.Yet Hemingways great novels no longer seem topenetrate deeply the surface of existence.One begins to doubt that they ever did so significantly(60) in the 1920s.Hemingways novels indulged the dominantgenteel tradition in American culture whileseeming to repudiate it. They yielded to thefunctionalist, technological aesthetic of the(65) culture instead of resisting in the manner ofFrank Lloyd Wright. Hemingway, in effect, became adupe of his culture rather than its moral-aestheticconscience. As a consequence, the import of hiswork has diminished. There is some evidence(70) from his stylistic evolution that Hemingwayhimself must have felt as much, for Hemingwaysfamous stylistic economy frequently seems toconceal another kind of writer, with much richerrhetorical resources to hand. So, Death in the(75) Afternoon (1932), Hemingways bullfightingopus and his first book after A Farewell to Arms(1929), reveals great uneasiness over his earlieraccomplishment. In it, he defends his literarymethod with a doctrine of ambiguity: “If a writer(80) of prose knows enough about what he is writingabout he may omit things that he knows andthe reader, if the writer is writing truly enough,will have a feeling of those things as strongly asthough the writer had stated them.”(85) Hemingway made much the same theoreticalpoint in another way in Death in the Afternoonapparently believing that a formal reduction ofaesthetic complexity was the only kind of designthat had value.(90) Perhaps the greatest irony of Death in theAfternoon is its unmistakably baroque prose,which Hemingway himself embarrassedlyadmitted was “flowery.” Reviewers, unable tochallenge Hemingways expertise in the art of(95) bullfighting, noted that its style was “awkward,tortuous, [and] belligerently clumsy.”Death in the Afternoon is an extraordinarilyself-indulgent, unruly, clownish, garrulous,and satiric book, with scrambled chronologies,(100) willful digressions, mock-scholarly apparatuses,fictional interludes, and scathing allusions. Itsinflated style can hardly penetrate the fagade, letalone deflate humanity.Q.Which statement provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?a)Lines 2–5 (“Like Lord . . . superb conviction”)b)Lines 28–32 (“And so . . . aroused in us”)c)Lines 34–36 (“We had much . . . formative influence”)d)Lines 39–41 (“They have rejected . . . own time”)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for SAT 2025 is part of SAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the SAT exam syllabus. Information about Question based on the following passages.Passage 1 is adapted from an essay written by John Aldridge in 1951. ©1951 by John Aldridge. Passage 2 is adapted from Brom Weber, "Ernest Hemingways Genteel Bullfight," published in The American Novel and the Nineteen Twenties. ©1971 by Hodder Education.Passage 1By the time we were old enough to readHemingway, he had become legendary. LikeLord Byron a century earlier, he had learnedto play himself, his own best hero, with superb(5) conviction. He was Hemingway of the ruggedoutdoor grin and the hairy chest posing beside alion he had just shot. He was Tarzan Hemingway,crouching in the African bush with elephant gunat ready. He was War Correspondent Hemingway(10) writing a play in the Hotel Florida in Madridwhile thirty fascist shells crashed throughthe roof. Later, he was Task Force Hemingwayswathed in ammunition belts and defendinghis post singlehandedly against fierce German(15) attacks.But even without the legend, the chestbeating, wisecracking pose that was later toseem so incredibly absurd, his impact upon uswas tremendous. The feeling he gave us was one(20) of immense expansiveness, freedom and, at thesame time, absolute stability and control. Wecould follow him, imitate his cold detachment,through all the doubts and fears of adolescenceand come out pure and untouched. The words(25) he put down seemed to us to have been carvedfrom the living stone of life. They conveyedexactly the taste, smell and feel of experience asit was, as it might possibly be. And so we beganunconsciously to translate our own sensations(30) into their terms and to impose on everythingwe did and felt the particular emotions theyaroused in us.The Hemingway time was a good time tobe young. We had much then that the war later(35) forced out of us, something far greater thanHemingways strong formative influence.Later writers who lost or got rid of Hemingwayhave been able to find nothing to put in hisplace. They have rejected his time as untrue(40) for them only to fail at finding themselves in theirown time. Others, in their embarrassment at thehold he once had over them, have not profitedby the lessons he had to teach, and still otherswere never touched by him at all. These last are(45) perhaps the real unfortunates, for they have beendenied access to a powerful tradition.Passage 2One wonders why Hemingways greatestworks now seem unable to evoke the same senseof a tottering world that in the 1920s established(50) Ernest Hemingways reputation. These novelsshould be speaking to us. Our social structureis as shaken, our philosophical despair as great,our everyday experience as unsatisfying. We havehad more war than Hemingway ever dreamed(55) of. Our violence—physical, emotional, andintellectual—is not inferior to that of the 1920s.Yet Hemingways great novels no longer seem topenetrate deeply the surface of existence.One begins to doubt that they ever did so significantly(60) in the 1920s.Hemingways novels indulged the dominantgenteel tradition in American culture whileseeming to repudiate it. They yielded to thefunctionalist, technological aesthetic of the(65) culture instead of resisting in the manner ofFrank Lloyd Wright. Hemingway, in effect, became adupe of his culture rather than its moral-aestheticconscience. As a consequence, the import of hiswork has diminished. There is some evidence(70) from his stylistic evolution that Hemingwayhimself must have felt as much, for Hemingwaysfamous stylistic economy frequently seems toconceal another kind of writer, with much richerrhetorical resources to hand. So, Death in the(75) Afternoon (1932), Hemingways bullfightingopus and his first book after A Farewell to Arms(1929), reveals great uneasiness over his earlieraccomplishment. In it, he defends his literarymethod with a doctrine of ambiguity: “If a writer(80) of prose knows enough about what he is writingabout he may omit things that he knows andthe reader, if the writer is writing truly enough,will have a feeling of those things as strongly asthough the writer had stated them.”(85) Hemingway made much the same theoreticalpoint in another way in Death in the Afternoonapparently believing that a formal reduction ofaesthetic complexity was the only kind of designthat had value.(90) Perhaps the greatest irony of Death in theAfternoon is its unmistakably baroque prose,which Hemingway himself embarrassedlyadmitted was “flowery.” Reviewers, unable tochallenge Hemingways expertise in the art of(95) bullfighting, noted that its style was “awkward,tortuous, [and] belligerently clumsy.”Death in the Afternoon is an extraordinarilyself-indulgent, unruly, clownish, garrulous,and satiric book, with scrambled chronologies,(100) willful digressions, mock-scholarly apparatuses,fictional interludes, and scathing allusions. Itsinflated style can hardly penetrate the fagade, letalone deflate humanity.Q.Which statement provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?a)Lines 2–5 (“Like Lord . . . superb conviction”)b)Lines 28–32 (“And so . . . aroused in us”)c)Lines 34–36 (“We had much . . . formative influence”)d)Lines 39–41 (“They have rejected . . . own time”)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for SAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Question based on the following passages.Passage 1 is adapted from an essay written by John Aldridge in 1951. ©1951 by John Aldridge. Passage 2 is adapted from Brom Weber, "Ernest Hemingways Genteel Bullfight," published in The American Novel and the Nineteen Twenties. ©1971 by Hodder Education.Passage 1By the time we were old enough to readHemingway, he had become legendary. LikeLord Byron a century earlier, he had learnedto play himself, his own best hero, with superb(5) conviction. He was Hemingway of the ruggedoutdoor grin and the hairy chest posing beside alion he had just shot. He was Tarzan Hemingway,crouching in the African bush with elephant gunat ready. He was War Correspondent Hemingway(10) writing a play in the Hotel Florida in Madridwhile thirty fascist shells crashed throughthe roof. Later, he was Task Force Hemingwayswathed in ammunition belts and defendinghis post singlehandedly against fierce German(15) attacks.But even without the legend, the chestbeating, wisecracking pose that was later toseem so incredibly absurd, his impact upon uswas tremendous. The feeling he gave us was one(20) of immense expansiveness, freedom and, at thesame time, absolute stability and control. Wecould follow him, imitate his cold detachment,through all the doubts and fears of adolescenceand come out pure and untouched. The words(25) he put down seemed to us to have been carvedfrom the living stone of life. They conveyedexactly the taste, smell and feel of experience asit was, as it might possibly be. And so we beganunconsciously to translate our own sensations(30) into their terms and to impose on everythingwe did and felt the particular emotions theyaroused in us.The Hemingway time was a good time tobe young. We had much then that the war later(35) forced out of us, something far greater thanHemingways strong formative influence.Later writers who lost or got rid of Hemingwayhave been able to find nothing to put in hisplace. They have rejected his time as untrue(40) for them only to fail at finding themselves in theirown time. Others, in their embarrassment at thehold he once had over them, have not profitedby the lessons he had to teach, and still otherswere never touched by him at all. These last are(45) perhaps the real unfortunates, for they have beendenied access to a powerful tradition.Passage 2One wonders why Hemingways greatestworks now seem unable to evoke the same senseof a tottering world that in the 1920s established(50) Ernest Hemingways reputation. These novelsshould be speaking to us. Our social structureis as shaken, our philosophical despair as great,our everyday experience as unsatisfying. We havehad more war than Hemingway ever dreamed(55) of. Our violence—physical, emotional, andintellectual—is not inferior to that of the 1920s.Yet Hemingways great novels no longer seem topenetrate deeply the surface of existence.One begins to doubt that they ever did so significantly(60) in the 1920s.Hemingways novels indulged the dominantgenteel tradition in American culture whileseeming to repudiate it. They yielded to thefunctionalist, technological aesthetic of the(65) culture instead of resisting in the manner ofFrank Lloyd Wright. Hemingway, in effect, became adupe of his culture rather than its moral-aestheticconscience. As a consequence, the import of hiswork has diminished. There is some evidence(70) from his stylistic evolution that Hemingwayhimself must have felt as much, for Hemingwaysfamous stylistic economy frequently seems toconceal another kind of writer, with much richerrhetorical resources to hand. So, Death in the(75) Afternoon (1932), Hemingways bullfightingopus and his first book after A Farewell to Arms(1929), reveals great uneasiness over his earlieraccomplishment. In it, he defends his literarymethod with a doctrine of ambiguity: “If a writer(80) of prose knows enough about what he is writingabout he may omit things that he knows andthe reader, if the writer is writing truly enough,will have a feeling of those things as strongly asthough the writer had stated them.”(85) Hemingway made much the same theoreticalpoint in another way in Death in the Afternoonapparently believing that a formal reduction ofaesthetic complexity was the only kind of designthat had value.(90) Perhaps the greatest irony of Death in theAfternoon is its unmistakably baroque prose,which Hemingway himself embarrassedlyadmitted was “flowery.” Reviewers, unable tochallenge Hemingways expertise in the art of(95) bullfighting, noted that its style was “awkward,tortuous, [and] belligerently clumsy.”Death in the Afternoon is an extraordinarilyself-indulgent, unruly, clownish, garrulous,and satiric book, with scrambled chronologies,(100) willful digressions, mock-scholarly apparatuses,fictional interludes, and scathing allusions. Itsinflated style can hardly penetrate the fagade, letalone deflate humanity.Q.Which statement provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?a)Lines 2–5 (“Like Lord . . . superb conviction”)b)Lines 28–32 (“And so . . . aroused in us”)c)Lines 34–36 (“We had much . . . formative influence”)d)Lines 39–41 (“They have rejected . . . own time”)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Question based on the following passages.Passage 1 is adapted from an essay written by John Aldridge in 1951. ©1951 by John Aldridge. Passage 2 is adapted from Brom Weber, "Ernest Hemingways Genteel Bullfight," published in The American Novel and the Nineteen Twenties. ©1971 by Hodder Education.Passage 1By the time we were old enough to readHemingway, he had become legendary. LikeLord Byron a century earlier, he had learnedto play himself, his own best hero, with superb(5) conviction. He was Hemingway of the ruggedoutdoor grin and the hairy chest posing beside alion he had just shot. He was Tarzan Hemingway,crouching in the African bush with elephant gunat ready. He was War Correspondent Hemingway(10) writing a play in the Hotel Florida in Madridwhile thirty fascist shells crashed throughthe roof. Later, he was Task Force Hemingwayswathed in ammunition belts and defendinghis post singlehandedly against fierce German(15) attacks.But even without the legend, the chestbeating, wisecracking pose that was later toseem so incredibly absurd, his impact upon uswas tremendous. The feeling he gave us was one(20) of immense expansiveness, freedom and, at thesame time, absolute stability and control. Wecould follow him, imitate his cold detachment,through all the doubts and fears of adolescenceand come out pure and untouched. The words(25) he put down seemed to us to have been carvedfrom the living stone of life. They conveyedexactly the taste, smell and feel of experience asit was, as it might possibly be. And so we beganunconsciously to translate our own sensations(30) into their terms and to impose on everythingwe did and felt the particular emotions theyaroused in us.The Hemingway time was a good time tobe young. We had much then that the war later(35) forced out of us, something far greater thanHemingways strong formative influence.Later writers who lost or got rid of Hemingwayhave been able to find nothing to put in hisplace. They have rejected his time as untrue(40) for them only to fail at finding themselves in theirown time. Others, in their embarrassment at thehold he once had over them, have not profitedby the lessons he had to teach, and still otherswere never touched by him at all. These last are(45) perhaps the real unfortunates, for they have beendenied access to a powerful tradition.Passage 2One wonders why Hemingways greatestworks now seem unable to evoke the same senseof a tottering world that in the 1920s established(50) Ernest Hemingways reputation. These novelsshould be speaking to us. Our social structureis as shaken, our philosophical despair as great,our everyday experience as unsatisfying. We havehad more war than Hemingway ever dreamed(55) of. Our violence—physical, emotional, andintellectual—is not inferior to that of the 1920s.Yet Hemingways great novels no longer seem topenetrate deeply the surface of existence.One begins to doubt that they ever did so significantly(60) in the 1920s.Hemingways novels indulged the dominantgenteel tradition in American culture whileseeming to repudiate it. They yielded to thefunctionalist, technological aesthetic of the(65) culture instead of resisting in the manner ofFrank Lloyd Wright. Hemingway, in effect, became adupe of his culture rather than its moral-aestheticconscience. As a consequence, the import of hiswork has diminished. There is some evidence(70) from his stylistic evolution that Hemingwayhimself must have felt as much, for Hemingwaysfamous stylistic economy frequently seems toconceal another kind of writer, with much richerrhetorical resources to hand. So, Death in the(75) Afternoon (1932), Hemingways bullfightingopus and his first book after A Farewell to Arms(1929), reveals great uneasiness over his earlieraccomplishment. In it, he defends his literarymethod with a doctrine of ambiguity: “If a writer(80) of prose knows enough about what he is writingabout he may omit things that he knows andthe reader, if the writer is writing truly enough,will have a feeling of those things as strongly asthough the writer had stated them.”(85) Hemingway made much the same theoreticalpoint in another way in Death in the Afternoonapparently believing that a formal reduction ofaesthetic complexity was the only kind of designthat had value.(90) Perhaps the greatest irony of Death in theAfternoon is its unmistakably baroque prose,which Hemingway himself embarrassedlyadmitted was “flowery.” Reviewers, unable tochallenge Hemingways expertise in the art of(95) bullfighting, noted that its style was “awkward,tortuous, [and] belligerently clumsy.”Death in the Afternoon is an extraordinarilyself-indulgent, unruly, clownish, garrulous,and satiric book, with scrambled chronologies,(100) willful digressions, mock-scholarly apparatuses,fictional interludes, and scathing allusions. Itsinflated style can hardly penetrate the fagade, letalone deflate humanity.Q.Which statement provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?a)Lines 2–5 (“Like Lord . . . superb conviction”)b)Lines 28–32 (“And so . . . aroused in us”)c)Lines 34–36 (“We had much . . . formative influence”)d)Lines 39–41 (“They have rejected . . . own time”)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for SAT 2025 is part of SAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the SAT exam syllabus. Information about Question based on the following passages.Passage 1 is adapted from an essay written by John Aldridge in 1951. ©1951 by John Aldridge. Passage 2 is adapted from Brom Weber, "Ernest Hemingways Genteel Bullfight," published in The American Novel and the Nineteen Twenties. ©1971 by Hodder Education.Passage 1By the time we were old enough to readHemingway, he had become legendary. LikeLord Byron a century earlier, he had learnedto play himself, his own best hero, with superb(5) conviction. He was Hemingway of the ruggedoutdoor grin and the hairy chest posing beside alion he had just shot. He was Tarzan Hemingway,crouching in the African bush with elephant gunat ready. He was War Correspondent Hemingway(10) writing a play in the Hotel Florida in Madridwhile thirty fascist shells crashed throughthe roof. Later, he was Task Force Hemingwayswathed in ammunition belts and defendinghis post singlehandedly against fierce German(15) attacks.But even without the legend, the chestbeating, wisecracking pose that was later toseem so incredibly absurd, his impact upon uswas tremendous. The feeling he gave us was one(20) of immense expansiveness, freedom and, at thesame time, absolute stability and control. Wecould follow him, imitate his cold detachment,through all the doubts and fears of adolescenceand come out pure and untouched. The words(25) he put down seemed to us to have been carvedfrom the living stone of life. They conveyedexactly the taste, smell and feel of experience asit was, as it might possibly be. And so we beganunconsciously to translate our own sensations(30) into their terms and to impose on everythingwe did and felt the particular emotions theyaroused in us.The Hemingway time was a good time tobe young. We had much then that the war later(35) forced out of us, something far greater thanHemingways strong formative influence.Later writers who lost or got rid of Hemingwayhave been able to find nothing to put in hisplace. They have rejected his time as untrue(40) for them only to fail at finding themselves in theirown time. Others, in their embarrassment at thehold he once had over them, have not profitedby the lessons he had to teach, and still otherswere never touched by him at all. These last are(45) perhaps the real unfortunates, for they have beendenied access to a powerful tradition.Passage 2One wonders why Hemingways greatestworks now seem unable to evoke the same senseof a tottering world that in the 1920s established(50) Ernest Hemingways reputation. These novelsshould be speaking to us. Our social structureis as shaken, our philosophical despair as great,our everyday experience as unsatisfying. We havehad more war than Hemingway ever dreamed(55) of. Our violence—physical, emotional, andintellectual—is not inferior to that of the 1920s.Yet Hemingways great novels no longer seem topenetrate deeply the surface of existence.One begins to doubt that they ever did so significantly(60) in the 1920s.Hemingways novels indulged the dominantgenteel tradition in American culture whileseeming to repudiate it. They yielded to thefunctionalist, technological aesthetic of the(65) culture instead of resisting in the manner ofFrank Lloyd Wright. Hemingway, in effect, became adupe of his culture rather than its moral-aestheticconscience. As a consequence, the import of hiswork has diminished. There is some evidence(70) from his stylistic evolution that Hemingwayhimself must have felt as much, for Hemingwaysfamous stylistic economy frequently seems toconceal another kind of writer, with much richerrhetorical resources to hand. So, Death in the(75) Afternoon (1932), Hemingways bullfightingopus and his first book after A Farewell to Arms(1929), reveals great uneasiness over his earlieraccomplishment. In it, he defends his literarymethod with a doctrine of ambiguity: “If a writer(80) of prose knows enough about what he is writingabout he may omit things that he knows andthe reader, if the writer is writing truly enough,will have a feeling of those things as strongly asthough the writer had stated them.”(85) Hemingway made much the same theoreticalpoint in another way in Death in the Afternoonapparently believing that a formal reduction ofaesthetic complexity was the only kind of designthat had value.(90) Perhaps the greatest irony of Death in theAfternoon is its unmistakably baroque prose,which Hemingway himself embarrassedlyadmitted was “flowery.” Reviewers, unable tochallenge Hemingways expertise in the art of(95) bullfighting, noted that its style was “awkward,tortuous, [and] belligerently clumsy.”Death in the Afternoon is an extraordinarilyself-indulgent, unruly, clownish, garrulous,and satiric book, with scrambled chronologies,(100) willful digressions, mock-scholarly apparatuses,fictional interludes, and scathing allusions. Itsinflated style can hardly penetrate the fagade, letalone deflate humanity.Q.Which statement provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?a)Lines 2–5 (“Like Lord . . . superb conviction”)b)Lines 28–32 (“And so . . . aroused in us”)c)Lines 34–36 (“We had much . . . formative influence”)d)Lines 39–41 (“They have rejected . . . own time”)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for SAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Question based on the following passages.Passage 1 is adapted from an essay written by John Aldridge in 1951. ©1951 by John Aldridge. Passage 2 is adapted from Brom Weber, "Ernest Hemingways Genteel Bullfight," published in The American Novel and the Nineteen Twenties. ©1971 by Hodder Education.Passage 1By the time we were old enough to readHemingway, he had become legendary. LikeLord Byron a century earlier, he had learnedto play himself, his own best hero, with superb(5) conviction. He was Hemingway of the ruggedoutdoor grin and the hairy chest posing beside alion he had just shot. He was Tarzan Hemingway,crouching in the African bush with elephant gunat ready. He was War Correspondent Hemingway(10) writing a play in the Hotel Florida in Madridwhile thirty fascist shells crashed throughthe roof. Later, he was Task Force Hemingwayswathed in ammunition belts and defendinghis post singlehandedly against fierce German(15) attacks.But even without the legend, the chestbeating, wisecracking pose that was later toseem so incredibly absurd, his impact upon uswas tremendous. The feeling he gave us was one(20) of immense expansiveness, freedom and, at thesame time, absolute stability and control. Wecould follow him, imitate his cold detachment,through all the doubts and fears of adolescenceand come out pure and untouched. The words(25) he put down seemed to us to have been carvedfrom the living stone of life. They conveyedexactly the taste, smell and feel of experience asit was, as it might possibly be. And so we beganunconsciously to translate our own sensations(30) into their terms and to impose on everythingwe did and felt the particular emotions theyaroused in us.The Hemingway time was a good time tobe young. We had much then that the war later(35) forced out of us, something far greater thanHemingways strong formative influence.Later writers who lost or got rid of Hemingwayhave been able to find nothing to put in hisplace. They have rejected his time as untrue(40) for them only to fail at finding themselves in theirown time. Others, in their embarrassment at thehold he once had over them, have not profitedby the lessons he had to teach, and still otherswere never touched by him at all. These last are(45) perhaps the real unfortunates, for they have beendenied access to a powerful tradition.Passage 2One wonders why Hemingways greatestworks now seem unable to evoke the same senseof a tottering world that in the 1920s established(50) Ernest Hemingways reputation. These novelsshould be speaking to us. Our social structureis as shaken, our philosophical despair as great,our everyday experience as unsatisfying. We havehad more war than Hemingway ever dreamed(55) of. Our violence—physical, emotional, andintellectual—is not inferior to that of the 1920s.Yet Hemingways great novels no longer seem topenetrate deeply the surface of existence.One begins to doubt that they ever did so significantly(60) in the 1920s.Hemingways novels indulged the dominantgenteel tradition in American culture whileseeming to repudiate it. They yielded to thefunctionalist, technological aesthetic of the(65) culture instead of resisting in the manner ofFrank Lloyd Wright. Hemingway, in effect, became adupe of his culture rather than its moral-aestheticconscience. As a consequence, the import of hiswork has diminished. There is some evidence(70) from his stylistic evolution that Hemingwayhimself must have felt as much, for Hemingwaysfamous stylistic economy frequently seems toconceal another kind of writer, with much richerrhetorical resources to hand. So, Death in the(75) Afternoon (1932), Hemingways bullfightingopus and his first book after A Farewell to Arms(1929), reveals great uneasiness over his earlieraccomplishment. In it, he defends his literarymethod with a doctrine of ambiguity: “If a writer(80) of prose knows enough about what he is writingabout he may omit things that he knows andthe reader, if the writer is writing truly enough,will have a feeling of those things as strongly asthough the writer had stated them.”(85) Hemingway made much the same theoreticalpoint in another way in Death in the Afternoonapparently believing that a formal reduction ofaesthetic complexity was the only kind of designthat had value.(90) Perhaps the greatest irony of Death in theAfternoon is its unmistakably baroque prose,which Hemingway himself embarrassedlyadmitted was “flowery.” Reviewers, unable tochallenge Hemingways expertise in the art of(95) bullfighting, noted that its style was “awkward,tortuous, [and] belligerently clumsy.”Death in the Afternoon is an extraordinarilyself-indulgent, unruly, clownish, garrulous,and satiric book, with scrambled chronologies,(100) willful digressions, mock-scholarly apparatuses,fictional interludes, and scathing allusions. Itsinflated style can hardly penetrate the fagade, letalone deflate humanity.Q.Which statement provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?a)Lines 2–5 (“Like Lord . . . superb conviction”)b)Lines 28–32 (“And so . . . aroused in us”)c)Lines 34–36 (“We had much . . . formative influence”)d)Lines 39–41 (“They have rejected . . . own time”)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Question based on the following passages.Passage 1 is adapted from an essay written by John Aldridge in 1951. ©1951 by John Aldridge. Passage 2 is adapted from Brom Weber, "Ernest Hemingways Genteel Bullfight," published in The American Novel and the Nineteen Twenties. ©1971 by Hodder Education.Passage 1By the time we were old enough to readHemingway, he had become legendary. LikeLord Byron a century earlier, he had learnedto play himself, his own best hero, with superb(5) conviction. He was Hemingway of the ruggedoutdoor grin and the hairy chest posing beside alion he had just shot. He was Tarzan Hemingway,crouching in the African bush with elephant gunat ready. He was War Correspondent Hemingway(10) writing a play in the Hotel Florida in Madridwhile thirty fascist shells crashed throughthe roof. Later, he was Task Force Hemingwayswathed in ammunition belts and defendinghis post singlehandedly against fierce German(15) attacks.But even without the legend, the chestbeating, wisecracking pose that was later toseem so incredibly absurd, his impact upon uswas tremendous. The feeling he gave us was one(20) of immense expansiveness, freedom and, at thesame time, absolute stability and control. Wecould follow him, imitate his cold detachment,through all the doubts and fears of adolescenceand come out pure and untouched. The words(25) he put down seemed to us to have been carvedfrom the living stone of life. They conveyedexactly the taste, smell and feel of experience asit was, as it might possibly be. And so we beganunconsciously to translate our own sensations(30) into their terms and to impose on everythingwe did and felt the particular emotions theyaroused in us.The Hemingway time was a good time tobe young. We had much then that the war later(35) forced out of us, something far greater thanHemingways strong formative influence.Later writers who lost or got rid of Hemingwayhave been able to find nothing to put in hisplace. They have rejected his time as untrue(40) for them only to fail at finding themselves in theirown time. Others, in their embarrassment at thehold he once had over them, have not profitedby the lessons he had to teach, and still otherswere never touched by him at all. These last are(45) perhaps the real unfortunates, for they have beendenied access to a powerful tradition.Passage 2One wonders why Hemingways greatestworks now seem unable to evoke the same senseof a tottering world that in the 1920s established(50) Ernest Hemingways reputation. These novelsshould be speaking to us. Our social structureis as shaken, our philosophical despair as great,our everyday experience as unsatisfying. We havehad more war than Hemingway ever dreamed(55) of. Our violence—physical, emotional, andintellectual—is not inferior to that of the 1920s.Yet Hemingways great novels no longer seem topenetrate deeply the surface of existence.One begins to doubt that they ever did so significantly(60) in the 1920s.Hemingways novels indulged the dominantgenteel tradition in American culture whileseeming to repudiate it. They yielded to thefunctionalist, technological aesthetic of the(65) culture instead of resisting in the manner ofFrank Lloyd Wright. Hemingway, in effect, became adupe of his culture rather than its moral-aestheticconscience. As a consequence, the import of hiswork has diminished. There is some evidence(70) from his stylistic evolution that Hemingwayhimself must have felt as much, for Hemingwaysfamous stylistic economy frequently seems toconceal another kind of writer, with much richerrhetorical resources to hand. So, Death in the(75) Afternoon (1932), Hemingways bullfightingopus and his first book after A Farewell to Arms(1929), reveals great uneasiness over his earlieraccomplishment. In it, he defends his literarymethod with a doctrine of ambiguity: “If a writer(80) of prose knows enough about what he is writingabout he may omit things that he knows andthe reader, if the writer is writing truly enough,will have a feeling of those things as strongly asthough the writer had stated them.”(85) Hemingway made much the same theoreticalpoint in another way in Death in the Afternoonapparently believing that a formal reduction ofaesthetic complexity was the only kind of designthat had value.(90) Perhaps the greatest irony of Death in theAfternoon is its unmistakably baroque prose,which Hemingway himself embarrassedlyadmitted was “flowery.” Reviewers, unable tochallenge Hemingways expertise in the art of(95) bullfighting, noted that its style was “awkward,tortuous, [and] belligerently clumsy.”Death in the Afternoon is an extraordinarilyself-indulgent, unruly, clownish, garrulous,and satiric book, with scrambled chronologies,(100) willful digressions, mock-scholarly apparatuses,fictional interludes, and scathing allusions. Itsinflated style can hardly penetrate the fagade, letalone deflate humanity.Q.Which statement provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?a)Lines 2–5 (“Like Lord . . . superb conviction”)b)Lines 28–32 (“And so . . . aroused in us”)c)Lines 34–36 (“We had much . . . formative influence”)d)Lines 39–41 (“They have rejected . . . own time”)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for SAT.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for SAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Question based on the following passages.Passage 1 is adapted from an essay written by John Aldridge in 1951. ©1951 by John Aldridge. Passage 2 is adapted from Brom Weber, "Ernest Hemingways Genteel Bullfight," published in The American Novel and the Nineteen Twenties. ©1971 by Hodder Education.Passage 1By the time we were old enough to readHemingway, he had become legendary. LikeLord Byron a century earlier, he had learnedto play himself, his own best hero, with superb(5) conviction. He was Hemingway of the ruggedoutdoor grin and the hairy chest posing beside alion he had just shot. He was Tarzan Hemingway,crouching in the African bush with elephant gunat ready. He was War Correspondent Hemingway(10) writing a play in the Hotel Florida in Madridwhile thirty fascist shells crashed throughthe roof. Later, he was Task Force Hemingwayswathed in ammunition belts and defendinghis post singlehandedly against fierce German(15) attacks.But even without the legend, the chestbeating, wisecracking pose that was later toseem so incredibly absurd, his impact upon uswas tremendous. The feeling he gave us was one(20) of immense expansiveness, freedom and, at thesame time, absolute stability and control. Wecould follow him, imitate his cold detachment,through all the doubts and fears of adolescenceand come out pure and untouched. The words(25) he put down seemed to us to have been carvedfrom the living stone of life. They conveyedexactly the taste, smell and feel of experience asit was, as it might possibly be. And so we beganunconsciously to translate our own sensations(30) into their terms and to impose on everythingwe did and felt the particular emotions theyaroused in us.The Hemingway time was a good time tobe young. We had much then that the war later(35) forced out of us, something far greater thanHemingways strong formative influence.Later writers who lost or got rid of Hemingwayhave been able to find nothing to put in hisplace. They have rejected his time as untrue(40) for them only to fail at finding themselves in theirown time. Others, in their embarrassment at thehold he once had over them, have not profitedby the lessons he had to teach, and still otherswere never touched by him at all. These last are(45) perhaps the real unfortunates, for they have beendenied access to a powerful tradition.Passage 2One wonders why Hemingways greatestworks now seem unable to evoke the same senseof a tottering world that in the 1920s established(50) Ernest Hemingways reputation. These novelsshould be speaking to us. Our social structureis as shaken, our philosophical despair as great,our everyday experience as unsatisfying. We havehad more war than Hemingway ever dreamed(55) of. Our violence—physical, emotional, andintellectual—is not inferior to that of the 1920s.Yet Hemingways great novels no longer seem topenetrate deeply the surface of existence.One begins to doubt that they ever did so significantly(60) in the 1920s.Hemingways novels indulged the dominantgenteel tradition in American culture whileseeming to repudiate it. They yielded to thefunctionalist, technological aesthetic of the(65) culture instead of resisting in the manner ofFrank Lloyd Wright. Hemingway, in effect, became adupe of his culture rather than its moral-aestheticconscience. As a consequence, the import of hiswork has diminished. There is some evidence(70) from his stylistic evolution that Hemingwayhimself must have felt as much, for Hemingwaysfamous stylistic economy frequently seems toconceal another kind of writer, with much richerrhetorical resources to hand. So, Death in the(75) Afternoon (1932), Hemingways bullfightingopus and his first book after A Farewell to Arms(1929), reveals great uneasiness over his earlieraccomplishment. In it, he defends his literarymethod with a doctrine of ambiguity: “If a writer(80) of prose knows enough about what he is writingabout he may omit things that he knows andthe reader, if the writer is writing truly enough,will have a feeling of those things as strongly asthough the writer had stated them.”(85) Hemingway made much the same theoreticalpoint in another way in Death in the Afternoonapparently believing that a formal reduction ofaesthetic complexity was the only kind of designthat had value.(90) Perhaps the greatest irony of Death in theAfternoon is its unmistakably baroque prose,which Hemingway himself embarrassedlyadmitted was “flowery.” Reviewers, unable tochallenge Hemingways expertise in the art of(95) bullfighting, noted that its style was “awkward,tortuous, [and] belligerently clumsy.”Death in the Afternoon is an extraordinarilyself-indulgent, unruly, clownish, garrulous,and satiric book, with scrambled chronologies,(100) willful digressions, mock-scholarly apparatuses,fictional interludes, and scathing allusions. Itsinflated style can hardly penetrate the fagade, letalone deflate humanity.Q.Which statement provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?a)Lines 2–5 (“Like Lord . . . superb conviction”)b)Lines 28–32 (“And so . . . aroused in us”)c)Lines 34–36 (“We had much . . . formative influence”)d)Lines 39–41 (“They have rejected . . . own time”)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of
Question based on the following passages.Passage 1 is adapted from an essay written by John Aldridge in 1951. ©1951 by John Aldridge. Passage 2 is adapted from Brom Weber, "Ernest Hemingways Genteel Bullfight," published in The American Novel and the Nineteen Twenties. ©1971 by Hodder Education.Passage 1By the time we were old enough to readHemingway, he had become legendary. LikeLord Byron a century earlier, he had learnedto play himself, his own best hero, with superb(5) conviction. He was Hemingway of the ruggedoutdoor grin and the hairy chest posing beside alion he had just shot. He was Tarzan Hemingway,crouching in the African bush with elephant gunat ready. He was War Correspondent Hemingway(10) writing a play in the Hotel Florida in Madridwhile thirty fascist shells crashed throughthe roof. Later, he was Task Force Hemingwayswathed in ammunition belts and defendinghis post singlehandedly against fierce German(15) attacks.But even without the legend, the chestbeating, wisecracking pose that was later toseem so incredibly absurd, his impact upon uswas tremendous. The feeling he gave us was one(20) of immense expansiveness, freedom and, at thesame time, absolute stability and control. Wecould follow him, imitate his cold detachment,through all the doubts and fears of adolescenceand come out pure and untouched. The words(25) he put down seemed to us to have been carvedfrom the living stone of life. They conveyedexactly the taste, smell and feel of experience asit was, as it might possibly be. And so we beganunconsciously to translate our own sensations(30) into their terms and to impose on everythingwe did and felt the particular emotions theyaroused in us.The Hemingway time was a good time tobe young. We had much then that the war later(35) forced out of us, something far greater thanHemingways strong formative influence.Later writers who lost or got rid of Hemingwayhave been able to find nothing to put in hisplace. They have rejected his time as untrue(40) for them only to fail at finding themselves in theirown time. Others, in their embarrassment at thehold he once had over them, have not profitedby the lessons he had to teach, and still otherswere never touched by him at all. These last are(45) perhaps the real unfortunates, for they have beendenied access to a powerful tradition.Passage 2One wonders why Hemingways greatestworks now seem unable to evoke the same senseof a tottering world that in the 1920s established(50) Ernest Hemingways reputation. These novelsshould be speaking to us. Our social structureis as shaken, our philosophical despair as great,our everyday experience as unsatisfying. We havehad more war than Hemingway ever dreamed(55) of. Our violence—physical, emotional, andintellectual—is not inferior to that of the 1920s.Yet Hemingways great novels no longer seem topenetrate deeply the surface of existence.One begins to doubt that they ever did so significantly(60) in the 1920s.Hemingways novels indulged the dominantgenteel tradition in American culture whileseeming to repudiate it. They yielded to thefunctionalist, technological aesthetic of the(65) culture instead of resisting in the manner ofFrank Lloyd Wright. Hemingway, in effect, became adupe of his culture rather than its moral-aestheticconscience. As a consequence, the import of hiswork has diminished. There is some evidence(70) from his stylistic evolution that Hemingwayhimself must have felt as much, for Hemingwaysfamous stylistic economy frequently seems toconceal another kind of writer, with much richerrhetorical resources to hand. So, Death in the(75) Afternoon (1932), Hemingways bullfightingopus and his first book after A Farewell to Arms(1929), reveals great uneasiness over his earlieraccomplishment. In it, he defends his literarymethod with a doctrine of ambiguity: “If a writer(80) of prose knows enough about what he is writingabout he may omit things that he knows andthe reader, if the writer is writing truly enough,will have a feeling of those things as strongly asthough the writer had stated them.”(85) Hemingway made much the same theoreticalpoint in another way in Death in the Afternoonapparently believing that a formal reduction ofaesthetic complexity was the only kind of designthat had value.(90) Perhaps the greatest irony of Death in theAfternoon is its unmistakably baroque prose,which Hemingway himself embarrassedlyadmitted was “flowery.” Reviewers, unable tochallenge Hemingways expertise in the art of(95) bullfighting, noted that its style was “awkward,tortuous, [and] belligerently clumsy.”Death in the Afternoon is an extraordinarilyself-indulgent, unruly, clownish, garrulous,and satiric book, with scrambled chronologies,(100) willful digressions, mock-scholarly apparatuses,fictional interludes, and scathing allusions. Itsinflated style can hardly penetrate the fagade, letalone deflate humanity.Q.Which statement provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?a)Lines 2–5 (“Like Lord . . . superb conviction”)b)Lines 28–32 (“And so . . . aroused in us”)c)Lines 34–36 (“We had much . . . formative influence”)d)Lines 39–41 (“They have rejected . . . own time”)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Question based on the following passages.Passage 1 is adapted from an essay written by John Aldridge in 1951. ©1951 by John Aldridge. Passage 2 is adapted from Brom Weber, "Ernest Hemingways Genteel Bullfight," published in The American Novel and the Nineteen Twenties. ©1971 by Hodder Education.Passage 1By the time we were old enough to readHemingway, he had become legendary. LikeLord Byron a century earlier, he had learnedto play himself, his own best hero, with superb(5) conviction. He was Hemingway of the ruggedoutdoor grin and the hairy chest posing beside alion he had just shot. He was Tarzan Hemingway,crouching in the African bush with elephant gunat ready. He was War Correspondent Hemingway(10) writing a play in the Hotel Florida in Madridwhile thirty fascist shells crashed throughthe roof. Later, he was Task Force Hemingwayswathed in ammunition belts and defendinghis post singlehandedly against fierce German(15) attacks.But even without the legend, the chestbeating, wisecracking pose that was later toseem so incredibly absurd, his impact upon uswas tremendous. The feeling he gave us was one(20) of immense expansiveness, freedom and, at thesame time, absolute stability and control. Wecould follow him, imitate his cold detachment,through all the doubts and fears of adolescenceand come out pure and untouched. The words(25) he put down seemed to us to have been carvedfrom the living stone of life. They conveyedexactly the taste, smell and feel of experience asit was, as it might possibly be. And so we beganunconsciously to translate our own sensations(30) into their terms and to impose on everythingwe did and felt the particular emotions theyaroused in us.The Hemingway time was a good time tobe young. We had much then that the war later(35) forced out of us, something far greater thanHemingways strong formative influence.Later writers who lost or got rid of Hemingwayhave been able to find nothing to put in hisplace. They have rejected his time as untrue(40) for them only to fail at finding themselves in theirown time. Others, in their embarrassment at thehold he once had over them, have not profitedby the lessons he had to teach, and still otherswere never touched by him at all. These last are(45) perhaps the real unfortunates, for they have beendenied access to a powerful tradition.Passage 2One wonders why Hemingways greatestworks now seem unable to evoke the same senseof a tottering world that in the 1920s established(50) Ernest Hemingways reputation. These novelsshould be speaking to us. Our social structureis as shaken, our philosophical despair as great,our everyday experience as unsatisfying. We havehad more war than Hemingway ever dreamed(55) of. Our violence—physical, emotional, andintellectual—is not inferior to that of the 1920s.Yet Hemingways great novels no longer seem topenetrate deeply the surface of existence.One begins to doubt that they ever did so significantly(60) in the 1920s.Hemingways novels indulged the dominantgenteel tradition in American culture whileseeming to repudiate it. They yielded to thefunctionalist, technological aesthetic of the(65) culture instead of resisting in the manner ofFrank Lloyd Wright. Hemingway, in effect, became adupe of his culture rather than its moral-aestheticconscience. As a consequence, the import of hiswork has diminished. There is some evidence(70) from his stylistic evolution that Hemingwayhimself must have felt as much, for Hemingwaysfamous stylistic economy frequently seems toconceal another kind of writer, with much richerrhetorical resources to hand. So, Death in the(75) Afternoon (1932), Hemingways bullfightingopus and his first book after A Farewell to Arms(1929), reveals great uneasiness over his earlieraccomplishment. In it, he defends his literarymethod with a doctrine of ambiguity: “If a writer(80) of prose knows enough about what he is writingabout he may omit things that he knows andthe reader, if the writer is writing truly enough,will have a feeling of those things as strongly asthough the writer had stated them.”(85) Hemingway made much the same theoreticalpoint in another way in Death in the Afternoonapparently believing that a formal reduction ofaesthetic complexity was the only kind of designthat had value.(90) Perhaps the greatest irony of Death in theAfternoon is its unmistakably baroque prose,which Hemingway himself embarrassedlyadmitted was “flowery.” Reviewers, unable tochallenge Hemingways expertise in the art of(95) bullfighting, noted that its style was “awkward,tortuous, [and] belligerently clumsy.”Death in the Afternoon is an extraordinarilyself-indulgent, unruly, clownish, garrulous,and satiric book, with scrambled chronologies,(100) willful digressions, mock-scholarly apparatuses,fictional interludes, and scathing allusions. Itsinflated style can hardly penetrate the fagade, letalone deflate humanity.Q.Which statement provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?a)Lines 2–5 (“Like Lord . . . superb conviction”)b)Lines 28–32 (“And so . . . aroused in us”)c)Lines 34–36 (“We had much . . . formative influence”)d)Lines 39–41 (“They have rejected . . . own time”)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Question based on the following passages.Passage 1 is adapted from an essay written by John Aldridge in 1951. ©1951 by John Aldridge. Passage 2 is adapted from Brom Weber, "Ernest Hemingways Genteel Bullfight," published in The American Novel and the Nineteen Twenties. ©1971 by Hodder Education.Passage 1By the time we were old enough to readHemingway, he had become legendary. LikeLord Byron a century earlier, he had learnedto play himself, his own best hero, with superb(5) conviction. He was Hemingway of the ruggedoutdoor grin and the hairy chest posing beside alion he had just shot. He was Tarzan Hemingway,crouching in the African bush with elephant gunat ready. He was War Correspondent Hemingway(10) writing a play in the Hotel Florida in Madridwhile thirty fascist shells crashed throughthe roof. Later, he was Task Force Hemingwayswathed in ammunition belts and defendinghis post singlehandedly against fierce German(15) attacks.But even without the legend, the chestbeating, wisecracking pose that was later toseem so incredibly absurd, his impact upon uswas tremendous. The feeling he gave us was one(20) of immense expansiveness, freedom and, at thesame time, absolute stability and control. Wecould follow him, imitate his cold detachment,through all the doubts and fears of adolescenceand come out pure and untouched. The words(25) he put down seemed to us to have been carvedfrom the living stone of life. They conveyedexactly the taste, smell and feel of experience asit was, as it might possibly be. And so we beganunconsciously to translate our own sensations(30) into their terms and to impose on everythingwe did and felt the particular emotions theyaroused in us.The Hemingway time was a good time tobe young. We had much then that the war later(35) forced out of us, something far greater thanHemingways strong formative influence.Later writers who lost or got rid of Hemingwayhave been able to find nothing to put in hisplace. They have rejected his time as untrue(40) for them only to fail at finding themselves in theirown time. Others, in their embarrassment at thehold he once had over them, have not profitedby the lessons he had to teach, and still otherswere never touched by him at all. These last are(45) perhaps the real unfortunates, for they have beendenied access to a powerful tradition.Passage 2One wonders why Hemingways greatestworks now seem unable to evoke the same senseof a tottering world that in the 1920s established(50) Ernest Hemingways reputation. These novelsshould be speaking to us. Our social structureis as shaken, our philosophical despair as great,our everyday experience as unsatisfying. We havehad more war than Hemingway ever dreamed(55) of. Our violence—physical, emotional, andintellectual—is not inferior to that of the 1920s.Yet Hemingways great novels no longer seem topenetrate deeply the surface of existence.One begins to doubt that they ever did so significantly(60) in the 1920s.Hemingways novels indulged the dominantgenteel tradition in American culture whileseeming to repudiate it. They yielded to thefunctionalist, technological aesthetic of the(65) culture instead of resisting in the manner ofFrank Lloyd Wright. Hemingway, in effect, became adupe of his culture rather than its moral-aestheticconscience. As a consequence, the import of hiswork has diminished. There is some evidence(70) from his stylistic evolution that Hemingwayhimself must have felt as much, for Hemingwaysfamous stylistic economy frequently seems toconceal another kind of writer, with much richerrhetorical resources to hand. So, Death in the(75) Afternoon (1932), Hemingways bullfightingopus and his first book after A Farewell to Arms(1929), reveals great uneasiness over his earlieraccomplishment. In it, he defends his literarymethod with a doctrine of ambiguity: “If a writer(80) of prose knows enough about what he is writingabout he may omit things that he knows andthe reader, if the writer is writing truly enough,will have a feeling of those things as strongly asthough the writer had stated them.”(85) Hemingway made much the same theoreticalpoint in another way in Death in the Afternoonapparently believing that a formal reduction ofaesthetic complexity was the only kind of designthat had value.(90) Perhaps the greatest irony of Death in theAfternoon is its unmistakably baroque prose,which Hemingway himself embarrassedlyadmitted was “flowery.” Reviewers, unable tochallenge Hemingways expertise in the art of(95) bullfighting, noted that its style was “awkward,tortuous, [and] belligerently clumsy.”Death in the Afternoon is an extraordinarilyself-indulgent, unruly, clownish, garrulous,and satiric book, with scrambled chronologies,(100) willful digressions, mock-scholarly apparatuses,fictional interludes, and scathing allusions. Itsinflated style can hardly penetrate the fagade, letalone deflate humanity.Q.Which statement provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?a)Lines 2–5 (“Like Lord . . . superb conviction”)b)Lines 28–32 (“And so . . . aroused in us”)c)Lines 34–36 (“We had much . . . formative influence”)d)Lines 39–41 (“They have rejected . . . own time”)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an
ample number of questions to practice Question based on the following passages.Passage 1 is adapted from an essay written by John Aldridge in 1951. ©1951 by John Aldridge. Passage 2 is adapted from Brom Weber, "Ernest Hemingways Genteel Bullfight," published in The American Novel and the Nineteen Twenties. ©1971 by Hodder Education.Passage 1By the time we were old enough to readHemingway, he had become legendary. LikeLord Byron a century earlier, he had learnedto play himself, his own best hero, with superb(5) conviction. He was Hemingway of the ruggedoutdoor grin and the hairy chest posing beside alion he had just shot. He was Tarzan Hemingway,crouching in the African bush with elephant gunat ready. He was War Correspondent Hemingway(10) writing a play in the Hotel Florida in Madridwhile thirty fascist shells crashed throughthe roof. Later, he was Task Force Hemingwayswathed in ammunition belts and defendinghis post singlehandedly against fierce German(15) attacks.But even without the legend, the chestbeating, wisecracking pose that was later toseem so incredibly absurd, his impact upon uswas tremendous. The feeling he gave us was one(20) of immense expansiveness, freedom and, at thesame time, absolute stability and control. Wecould follow him, imitate his cold detachment,through all the doubts and fears of adolescenceand come out pure and untouched. The words(25) he put down seemed to us to have been carvedfrom the living stone of life. They conveyedexactly the taste, smell and feel of experience asit was, as it might possibly be. And so we beganunconsciously to translate our own sensations(30) into their terms and to impose on everythingwe did and felt the particular emotions theyaroused in us.The Hemingway time was a good time tobe young. We had much then that the war later(35) forced out of us, something far greater thanHemingways strong formative influence.Later writers who lost or got rid of Hemingwayhave been able to find nothing to put in hisplace. They have rejected his time as untrue(40) for them only to fail at finding themselves in theirown time. Others, in their embarrassment at thehold he once had over them, have not profitedby the lessons he had to teach, and still otherswere never touched by him at all. These last are(45) perhaps the real unfortunates, for they have beendenied access to a powerful tradition.Passage 2One wonders why Hemingways greatestworks now seem unable to evoke the same senseof a tottering world that in the 1920s established(50) Ernest Hemingways reputation. These novelsshould be speaking to us. Our social structureis as shaken, our philosophical despair as great,our everyday experience as unsatisfying. We havehad more war than Hemingway ever dreamed(55) of. Our violence—physical, emotional, andintellectual—is not inferior to that of the 1920s.Yet Hemingways great novels no longer seem topenetrate deeply the surface of existence.One begins to doubt that they ever did so significantly(60) in the 1920s.Hemingways novels indulged the dominantgenteel tradition in American culture whileseeming to repudiate it. They yielded to thefunctionalist, technological aesthetic of the(65) culture instead of resisting in the manner ofFrank Lloyd Wright. Hemingway, in effect, became adupe of his culture rather than its moral-aestheticconscience. As a consequence, the import of hiswork has diminished. There is some evidence(70) from his stylistic evolution that Hemingwayhimself must have felt as much, for Hemingwaysfamous stylistic economy frequently seems toconceal another kind of writer, with much richerrhetorical resources to hand. So, Death in the(75) Afternoon (1932), Hemingways bullfightingopus and his first book after A Farewell to Arms(1929), reveals great uneasiness over his earlieraccomplishment. In it, he defends his literarymethod with a doctrine of ambiguity: “If a writer(80) of prose knows enough about what he is writingabout he may omit things that he knows andthe reader, if the writer is writing truly enough,will have a feeling of those things as strongly asthough the writer had stated them.”(85) Hemingway made much the same theoreticalpoint in another way in Death in the Afternoonapparently believing that a formal reduction ofaesthetic complexity was the only kind of designthat had value.(90) Perhaps the greatest irony of Death in theAfternoon is its unmistakably baroque prose,which Hemingway himself embarrassedlyadmitted was “flowery.” Reviewers, unable tochallenge Hemingways expertise in the art of(95) bullfighting, noted that its style was “awkward,tortuous, [and] belligerently clumsy.”Death in the Afternoon is an extraordinarilyself-indulgent, unruly, clownish, garrulous,and satiric book, with scrambled chronologies,(100) willful digressions, mock-scholarly apparatuses,fictional interludes, and scathing allusions. Itsinflated style can hardly penetrate the fagade, letalone deflate humanity.Q.Which statement provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?a)Lines 2–5 (“Like Lord . . . superb conviction”)b)Lines 28–32 (“And so . . . aroused in us”)c)Lines 34–36 (“We had much . . . formative influence”)d)Lines 39–41 (“They have rejected . . . own time”)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice SAT tests.
|
|
Explore Courses for SAT exam
|
|
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
|
© 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