Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Magical realism provides the reader with a unique perspective of the world -we look on it with new eyes. The reader must go beyond reality to understand magical realism. Magical realism may be related to certain academic fields such as psychology because of the state of mind one must use to really know what is happening.

Magical realism can be characterized in many ways. Mainly, it depends on one's own opinion, but for me reading certain selections about it, one can get basically the same point of view from it. "Meticulous craftsmen all, one finds them In the same preoccupation with style and also the same transformation of the common and everyday into the awesome and unreal"(Flores 114). The "awesome and the unreal" are characteristics that usually represent what magical realism is. Many magical realists use it in their selections to give readers a brief idea about magical realism. It is not just the everyday word or meaning to life. It is an outlook on what life has to give one if he or she is willing to look further into it.

In the psychological field, Victor Frankl discusses something called "will-to-meaning." Frankl says that in one life meaning is love for one's children to tie to; in another life, a talent to be used; in a third, perhaps only lingering memories worth preserving. In his studies, he stated that people survive to weave those slender threads of a broken life into a firm pattern of meaning and responsibility. Frankl poses three different lives in his theory. Either a person could be living one of the three or he or she could be living all three at one time. People just do not realize the magic. If one cannot find his or her "will-to-meaning in life, Frankl says that the sufferer fails to find meaning and a sense of responsibility in his existence. Later on, Frankl puts an answer issue to this by saying "A human suddenly realizes he has nothing to lose except his so ridiculously naked life." Frankl titles this idea as a mixed flow of emotion and apathy that is simply arresting. Also, Frankl gave a good meaning to his theory by quoting Nietzsche, "He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how." That quote was a really moving statement to me.

In the story Like Water For Chocolate, a young woman named Tita was haunted by her mother when she died. The love for a man made her mother haunt her because of Tita's disobedience to her mother after she had died. In relation to Frankl's ideas to this story, Tita had a reason to live as well as Frankl did. Frankl lived to write about what he had learned. His family all died in concentration camps with no meaning to life whatsoever. Tita at first thought she had no reason to live until meeting the love of her life. As Nietzsche said, "He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."

Magical realism relates to certain academic fields such as psychology because of the state of mind one must use to really know what is happening. In Frankl's will-to-meaning, like magical realism, one has to have a realization of what is going on and a "why and how" attitude towards it. Both are based upon the "real and unreal" where a person look upon things with other minds, not just a person's own natural state (psychologically)-(magically). I think magical realism has become more popular over the last sixty years because it is shown to be a relation to things used today in our academic fields. I think that if it was not used then it would not be as fun to learn about it. When there are more perspectives, learning is a lot more interesting.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Magical realism provides the reader with a unique perspective of the world -we look on it with new eyes. The reader must go beyond reality to understand magical realism. Magical realism may be related to certain academic fields such as psychology because of the state of mind one must use to really know what is happening.

Magical realism can be characterized in many ways. Mainly, it depends on one's own opinion, but for me reading certain selections about it, one can get basically the same point of view from it. "Meticulous craftsmen all, one finds them In the same preoccupation with style and also the same transformation of the common and everyday into the awesome and unreal"(Flores 114). The "awesome and the unreal" are characteristics that usually represent what magical realism is. Many magical realists use it in their selections to give readers a brief idea about magical realism. It is not just the everyday word or meaning to life. It is an outlook on what life has to give one if he or she is willing to look further into it.

In the psychological field, Victor Frankl discusses something called "will-to-meaning." Frankl says that in one life meaning is love for one's children to tie to; in another life, a talent to be used; in a third, perhaps only lingering memories worth preserving. In his studies, he stated that people survive to weave those slender threads of a broken life into a firm pattern of meaning and responsibility. Frankl poses three different lives in his theory. Either a person could be living one of the three or he or she could be living all three at one time. People just do not realize the magic. If one cannot find his or her "will-to-meaning in life, Frankl says that the sufferer fails to find meaning and a sense of responsibility in his existence. Later on, Frankl puts an answer issue to this by saying "A human suddenly realizes he has nothing to lose except his so ridiculously naked life." Frankl titles this idea as a mixed flow of emotion and apathy that is simply arresting. Also, Frankl gave a good meaning to his theory by quoting Nietzsche, "He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how." That quote was a really moving statement to me.

In the story Like Water For Chocolate, a young woman named Tita was haunted by her mother when she died. The love for a man made her mother haunt her because of Tita's disobedience to her mother after she had died. In relation to Frankl's ideas to this story, Tita had a reason to live as well as Frankl did. Frankl lived to write about what he had learned. His family all died in concentration camps with no meaning to life whatsoever. Tita at first thought she had no reason to live until meeting the love of her life. As Nietzsche said, "He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."

Magical realism relates to certain academic fields such as psychology because of the state of mind one must use to really know what is happening. In Frankl's will-to-meaning, like magical realism, one has to have a realization of what is going on and a "why and how" attitude towards it. Both are based upon the "real and unreal" where a person look upon things with other minds, not just a person's own natural state (psychologically)-(magically). I think magical realism has become more popular over the last sixty years because it is shown to be a relation to things used today in our academic fields. I think that if it was not used then it would not be as fun to learn about it. When there are more perspectives, learning is a lot more interesting.

What role does Tita's story play in the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Magical realism provides the reader with a unique perspective of the world -we look on it with new eyes. The reader must go beyond reality to understand magical realism. Magical realism may be related to certain academic fields such as psychology because of the state of mind one must use to really know what is happening.

Magical realism can be characterized in many ways. Mainly, it depends on one's own opinion, but for me reading certain selections about it, one can get basically the same point of view from it. "Meticulous craftsmen all, one finds them In the same preoccupation with style and also the same transformation of the common and everyday into the awesome and unreal"(Flores 114). The "awesome and the unreal" are characteristics that usually represent what magical realism is. Many magical realists use it in their selections to give readers a brief idea about magical realism. It is not just the everyday word or meaning to life. It is an outlook on what life has to give one if he or she is willing to look further into it.

In the psychological field, Victor Frankl discusses something called "will-to-meaning." Frankl says that in one life meaning is love for one's children to tie to; in another life, a talent to be used; in a third, perhaps only lingering memories worth preserving. In his studies, he stated that people survive to weave those slender threads of a broken life into a firm pattern of meaning and responsibility. Frankl poses three different lives in his theory. Either a person could be living one of the three or he or she could be living all three at one time. People just do not realize the magic. If one cannot find his or her "will-to-meaning in life, Frankl says that the sufferer fails to find meaning and a sense of responsibility in his existence. Later on, Frankl puts an answer issue to this by saying "A human suddenly realizes he has nothing to lose except his so ridiculously naked life." Frankl titles this idea as a mixed flow of emotion and apathy that is simply arresting. Also, Frankl gave a good meaning to his theory by quoting Nietzsche, "He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how." That quote was a really moving statement to me.

In the story Like Water For Chocolate, a young woman named Tita was haunted by her mother when she died. The love for a man made her mother haunt her because of Tita's disobedience to her mother after she had died. In relation to Frankl's ideas to this story, Tita had a reason to live as well as Frankl did. Frankl lived to write about what he had learned. His family all died in concentration camps with no meaning to life whatsoever. Tita at first thought she had no reason to live until meeting the love of her life. As Nietzsche said, "He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."

Magical realism relates to certain academic fields such as psychology because of the state of mind one must use to really know what is happening. In Frankl's will-to-meaning, like magical realism, one has to have a realization of what is going on and a "why and how" attitude towards it. Both are based upon the "real and unreal" where a person look upon things with other minds, not just a person's own natural state (psychologically)-(magically). I think magical realism has become more popular over the last sixty years because it is shown to be a relation to things used today in our academic fields. I think that if it was not used then it would not be as fun to learn about it. When there are more perspectives, learning is a lot more interesting.

What can be the best title for the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

To entertain any theory about revolution," writes John Dunn, "--and it is not even possible to identify just what events do constitute revolutions without assuming some theory about the meaning of revolution--is to assume a political posture.... The value-free study of revolutions is a logical impossibility for those who live in the real world" (Dunn, 1972: 1-2). For the student of revolutions the problem is complicated by the fact that the political postures assumed spontaneously by those who write or speak about them, and, if not careful, by himself or herself, are not necessarily coherent or consistent. We live in an era when rapid and fundamental change has become the norm in everyday life, so that the terms "revolution" and "revolutionary" extend far beyond the field of political science. Moreover, common discourse identifies them, much in the eighteenth-century manner, with progress and the improvement of life, so that, as advertising agencies understand only too well, the word "revolutionary," when attached to a new microwave oven as distinct from a political regime, will sell the product more effectively, even among those most passionately committed to the defense of the status quo against subversion.

Nevertheless, the primary political meaning of "revolution" remains profoundly controversial, as the historiography of the subject demonstrates, and as the debates surrounding the bicentenary of the French Revolution of 1789 demonstrate even more unmistakably. What usually happens to revolutions sufficiently distant from the present--and two centuries are, by the news agency standards that dominate our information, almost beyond the range of the remembered past--is that they are either transformed into nonrevolutions--that is, integrated into historical continuity or excluded from it as insignificant temporary interruptions--or else they are celebrated by public rites of passage suitable to the occasions that mark the birth of nations and/or regimes. They remain controversial only among historians. Thus the English Revolution or revolutions of the seventeenth century has been tacitly eliminated from political discourse: even in the tercentenary year of what used to be called the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 and the constituting event of British parliamentary sovereignty, its presence in public rhetoric has been subdued and marginal. On the other hand, a celebratory consensus has marked the various bicentenaries connected with the American Revolution, and even opponents of those aspects of it which are still--or again--highly controversial, such as its deliberate refusal to give public recognition to religion, would not dream of using this as an argument against it. Its public face, jubilees and centenaries apart, is that of a rite of passage in the life of the nation, independence (celebrated on the Fourth of July) taking its place after first settlement (celebrated on Thanksgiving).

Attempts to apply these two techniques of eliminating the controversial aspects of the French Revolution have been made, by republicans and by the political right respectively, and the contention that it achieved little or nothing other than what would have happened without it, and thus constitutes not a major transforming set of events but only a sort of stumble on the long path of French history, is one of the main weapons in the intellectual war against those who wish to celebrate its bicentenary. Yet these attempts have failed. On the one hand, the revolution never gained the general retrospective consensus without which such events cannot become harmless national birthdays, not even after World War II briefly eliminated from the political scene that French Right that defined itself by its rejection of 1789. On the contrary, since the revolution inspired not only the Left of the relatively remote past but also the contemporary Left, it could not but remain contentious. As is quite evident from the pre-bicentenary debates in France, the traditional opponents of 1789 have been reinforced by the opponents of 1917; by reactionaries who would not disclaim that label, by liberals who certainly would. Yet the antirevolutionary attempt to demote the revolution, or shunt it onto a sidetrack of French historical development, has also failed, since, if it had succeeded, it would no longer need to be seriously argued. Indeed, the mere project of trying to prove that the French Revolution is not an altogether major event in modern history must strike non-Frenchmen as brave and quixotic--that is, as absurd.

The term 'magic' is used in the following context in the passage except ___________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Magical realism provides the reader with a unique perspective of the world -we look on it with new eyes. The reader must go beyond reality to understand magical realism. Magical realism may be related to certain academic fields such as psychology because of the state of mind one must use to really know what is happening.

Magical realism can be characterized in many ways. Mainly, it depends on one's own opinion, but for me reading certain selections about it, one can get basically the same point of view from it. "Meticulous craftsmen all, one finds them In the same preoccupation with style and also the same transformation of the common and everyday into the awesome and unreal"(Flores 114). The "awesome and the unreal" are characteristics that usually represent what magical realism is. Many magical realists use it in their selections to give readers a brief idea about magical realism. It is not just the everyday word or meaning to life. It is an outlook on what life has to give one if he or she is willing to look further into it.

In the psychological field, Victor Frankl discusses something called "will-to-meaning." Frankl says that in one life meaning is love for one's children to tie to; in another life, a talent to be used; in a third, perhaps only lingering memories worth preserving. In his studies, he stated that people survive to weave those slender threads of a broken life into a firm pattern of meaning and responsibility. Frankl poses three different lives in his theory. Either a person could be living one of the three or he or she could be living all three at one time. People just do not realize the magic. If one cannot find his or her "will-to-meaning in life, Frankl says that the sufferer fails to find meaning and a sense of responsibility in his existence. Later on, Frankl puts an answer issue to this by saying "A human suddenly realizes he has nothing to lose except his so ridiculously naked life." Frankl titles this idea as a mixed flow of emotion and apathy that is simply arresting. Also, Frankl gave a good meaning to his theory by quoting Nietzsche, "He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how." That quote was a really moving statement to me.

In the story Like Water For Chocolate, a young woman named Tita was haunted by her mother when she died. The love for a man made her mother haunt her because of Tita's disobedience to her mother after she had died. In relation to Frankl's ideas to this story, Tita had a reason to live as well as Frankl did. Frankl lived to write about what he had learned. His family all died in concentration camps with no meaning to life whatsoever. Tita at first thought she had no reason to live until meeting the love of her life. As Nietzsche said, "He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."

Magical realism relates to certain academic fields such as psychology because of the state of mind one must use to really know what is happening. In Frankl's will-to-meaning, like magical realism, one has to have a realization of what is going on and a "why and how" attitude towards it. Both are based upon the "real and unreal" where a person look upon things with other minds, not just a person's own natural state (psychologically)-(magically). I think magical realism has become more popular over the last sixty years because it is shown to be a relation to things used today in our academic fields. I think that if it was not used then it would not be as fun to learn about it. When there are more perspectives, learning is a lot more interesting.

It can be inferred from the passage that a speech attempting to persuade people to act would fail if it does not __________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern linguists concern themselves with many different facets of language, from the physical properties of the sound waves in utterances to the intentions of speakers towards others in conversations and the social contexts in which conversations are embedded. The branches of linguistics are concerned with how languages are structured, how languages are used, and how they change.

Many views have been developed by linguists and philosophers to analyse languages. Those who wanted to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century adopted the "scientistic" view of language.

Of all the devices for dragooning the human spirit, the least clumsy was to procure its abortion in the womb of language; and those who were driven by the impulse to reduce the specifically human to a mechanical or animal regularity, continued to be increasingly irritated by the nature of the mother tongue and make it their point of attack.

Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to right action, it might also be a means to distort truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned. As the “scientist” thinkers believed that people should be regarded only as machines guided by logic, they considered rhetoric to be of low value; for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person. Some of the rules for the argumentative essay are part of cultural expectations for any kind of discourse or communicative act: a coherent discourse has a beginning (intro, setting up the argument), middle (the argument itself with examples, support of claims, support of prior research, and/or close analysis of material) , and an end (a conclusion that ties up the argument and/or suggests broader implications or wider significance of the "middle".) Rhetoric first addressed the rational side of a person, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is respect. Fully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a remarkable feature of rhetoric that it transcends the logical argumentative nature and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It tries to create an analogous situation to achieve it’s ends- by recalling relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances-real or fictional- that are similar to our own circumstances.

In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he argues that the expression of reason is man’s highest attribute, and that all good things can be abused, so rhetoric is no different because there are some who abuse it. He also gives us a great deal comfort in our despair over the continued abuse of rhetoric; he says that the abuse of rhetoric will never be as strong as the right and proper use is.

The same is the case with historical accounts and fables which are always in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.

Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. Furthermore, rhetoric is abstract because the basic skills of rhetoric apply across a wide range of situations. Any time you are in a situation that requires speech making, analysis, persuasion, detailed explanations, and so on, you are using rhetorical skills. Rhetoric, therefore, is a widespread ability that comes into play in many other subject areas. A teacher of biology, for instance, uses rhetoric, not in biology itself, but in the teaching and communicating of biology.

Rhetoric is important for it takes into account what the "scientistic" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naïve; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.

Rhetoric used in the context of poetry produced something called “the flowers of rhetoric.” The flowers of rhetoric were beautiful, interesting, or unique turns of phrase which decorated the poetry of the time. “Flowers of rhetoric” is synonymous with another term that is more familiar to us, i.e., something called “the figures of speech.” We still have the term “a figure of speech” today, but it means much less to us than it did in the Renaissance. Today we use the phrase “a figure of speech” to mean that it was something we didn’t really intend to say. It is a way to excuse an accidentally ill-mannered comment or something that is not quite politically correct. We say that it was just a figure of speech. We also use the term to refer to metaphors, similes, and several other language patterns. This usage, to identify language patterns, is at least accurate, but this still gives us a much diminished view of what figures of speech are. In the Renaissance, there were literally hundreds of language patterns that were considered figures of speech. Any elegant, unusual, or patterned turn of phrase was a figure of speech, and whole books were printed, such as Henry Peacham’s The Garden of Eloquence, listing and cataloguing all the figures of speech and examples of them taken from literature. Learning these patterns and employing them in poetry and letters was fundamental to the education and the culture of the Renaissance. It was a time when people in all educated walks of life were cultured and literary.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern linguists concern themselves with many different facets of language, from the physical properties of the sound waves in utterances to the intentions of speakers towards others in conversations and the social contexts in which conversations are embedded. The branches of linguistics are concerned with how languages are structured, how languages are used, and how they change.

Many views have been developed by linguists and philosophers to analyse languages. Those who wanted to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century adopted the "scientistic" view of language.

Of all the devices for dragooning the human spirit, the least clumsy was to procure its abortion in the womb of language; and those who were driven by the impulse to reduce the specifically human to a mechanical or animal regularity, continued to be increasingly irritated by the nature of the mother tongue and make it their point of attack.

Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to right action, it might also be a means to distort truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned. As the “scientist” thinkers believed that people should be regarded only as machines guided by logic, they considered rhetoric to be of low value; for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person. Some of the rules for the argumentative essay are part of cultural expectations for any kind of discourse or communicative act: a coherent discourse has a beginning (intro, setting up the argument), middle (the argument itself with examples, support of claims, support of prior research, and/or close analysis of material) , and an end (a conclusion that ties up the argument and/or suggests broader implications or wider significance of the "middle".) Rhetoric first addressed the rational side of a person, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is respect. Fully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a remarkable feature of rhetoric that it transcends the logical argumentative nature and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It tries to create an analogous situation to achieve it’s ends- by recalling relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances-real or fictional- that are similar to our own circumstances.

In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he argues that the expression of reason is man’s highest attribute, and that all good things can be abused, so rhetoric is no different because there are some who abuse it. He also gives us a great deal comfort in our despair over the continued abuse of rhetoric; he says that the abuse of rhetoric will never be as strong as the right and proper use is.

The same is the case with historical accounts and fables which are always in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.

Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. Furthermore, rhetoric is abstract because the basic skills of rhetoric apply across a wide range of situations. Any time you are in a situation that requires speech making, analysis, persuasion, detailed explanations, and so on, you are using rhetorical skills. Rhetoric, therefore, is a widespread ability that comes into play in many other subject areas. A teacher of biology, for instance, uses rhetoric, not in biology itself, but in the teaching and communicating of biology.

Rhetoric is important for it takes into account what the "scientistic" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naïve; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.

Rhetoric used in the context of poetry produced something called “the flowers of rhetoric.” The flowers of rhetoric were beautiful, interesting, or unique turns of phrase which decorated the poetry of the time. “Flowers of rhetoric” is synonymous with another term that is more familiar to us, i.e., something called “the figures of speech.” We still have the term “a figure of speech” today, but it means much less to us than it did in the Renaissance. Today we use the phrase “a figure of speech” to mean that it was something we didn’t really intend to say. It is a way to excuse an accidentally ill-mannered comment or something that is not quite politically correct. We say that it was just a figure of speech. We also use the term to refer to metaphors, similes, and several other language patterns. This usage, to identify language patterns, is at least accurate, but this still gives us a much diminished view of what figures of speech are. In the Renaissance, there were literally hundreds of language patterns that were considered figures of speech. Any elegant, unusual, or patterned turn of phrase was a figure of speech, and whole books were printed, such as Henry Peacham’s The Garden of Eloquence, listing and cataloguing all the figures of speech and examples of them taken from literature. Learning these patterns and employing them in poetry and letters was fundamental to the education and the culture of the Renaissance. It was a time when people in all educated walks of life were cultured and literary.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

To entertain any theory about revolution," writes John Dunn, "--and it is not even possible to identify just what events do constitute revolutions without assuming some theory about the meaning of revolution--is to assume a political posture.... The value-free study of revolutions is a logical impossibility for those who live in the real world" (Dunn, 1972: 1-2). For the student of revolutions the problem is complicated by the fact that the political postures assumed spontaneously by those who write or speak about them, and, if not careful, by himself or herself, are not necessarily coherent or consistent. We live in an era when rapid and fundamental change has become the norm in everyday life, so that the terms "revolution" and "revolutionary" extend far beyond the field of political science. Moreover, common discourse identifies them, much in the eighteenth-century manner, with progress and the improvement of life, so that, as advertising agencies understand only too well, the word "revolutionary," when attached to a new microwave oven as distinct from a political regime, will sell the product more effectively, even among those most passionately committed to the defense of the status quo against subversion.

Nevertheless, the primary political meaning of "revolution" remains profoundly controversial, as the historiography of the subject demonstrates, and as the debates surrounding the bicentenary of the French Revolution of 1789 demonstrate even more unmistakably. What usually happens to revolutions sufficiently distant from the present--and two centuries are, by the news agency standards that dominate our information, almost beyond the range of the remembered past--is that they are either transformed into nonrevolutions--that is, integrated into historical continuity or excluded from it as insignificant temporary interruptions--or else they are celebrated by public rites of passage suitable to the occasions that mark the birth of nations and/or regimes. They remain controversial only among historians. Thus the English Revolution or revolutions of the seventeenth century has been tacitly eliminated from political discourse: even in the tercentenary year of what used to be called the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 and the constituting event of British parliamentary sovereignty, its presence in public rhetoric has been subdued and marginal. On the other hand, a celebratory consensus has marked the various bicentenaries connected with the American Revolution, and even opponents of those aspects of it which are still--or again--highly controversial, such as its deliberate refusal to give public recognition to religion, would not dream of using this as an argument against it. Its public face, jubilees and centenaries apart, is that of a rite of passage in the life of the nation, independence (celebrated on the Fourth of July) taking its place after first settlement (celebrated on Thanksgiving).

Attempts to apply these two techniques of eliminating the controversial aspects of the French Revolution have been made, by republicans and by the political right respectively, and the contention that it achieved little or nothing other than what would have happened without it, and thus constitutes not a major transforming set of events but only a sort of stumble on the long path of French history, is one of the main weapons in the intellectual war against those who wish to celebrate its bicentenary. Yet these attempts have failed. On the one hand, the revolution never gained the general retrospective consensus without which such events cannot become harmless national birthdays, not even after World War II briefly eliminated from the political scene that French Right that defined itself by its rejection of 1789. On the contrary, since the revolution inspired not only the Left of the relatively remote past but also the contemporary Left, it could not but remain contentious. As is quite evident from the pre-bicentenary debates in France, the traditional opponents of 1789 have been reinforced by the opponents of 1917; by reactionaries who would not disclaim that label, by liberals who certainly would. Yet the antirevolutionary attempt to demote the revolution, or shunt it onto a sidetrack of French historical development, has also failed, since, if it had succeeded, it would no longer need to be seriously argued. Indeed, the mere project of trying to prove that the French Revolution is not an altogether major event in modern history must strike non-Frenchmen as brave and quixotic--that is, as absurd.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

To entertain any theory about revolution," writes John Dunn, "--and it is not even possible to identify just what events do constitute revolutions without assuming some theory about the meaning of revolution--is to assume a political posture.... The value-free study of revolutions is a logical impossibility for those who live in the real world" (Dunn, 1972: 1-2). For the student of revolutions the problem is complicated by the fact that the political postures assumed spontaneously by those who write or speak about them, and, if not careful, by himself or herself, are not necessarily coherent or consistent. We live in an era when rapid and fundamental change has become the norm in everyday life, so that the terms "revolution" and "revolutionary" extend far beyond the field of political science. Moreover, common discourse identifies them, much in the eighteenth-century manner, with progress and the improvement of life, so that, as advertising agencies understand only too well, the word "revolutionary," when attached to a new microwave oven as distinct from a political regime, will sell the product more effectively, even among those most passionately committed to the defense of the status quo against subversion.

Nevertheless, the primary political meaning of "revolution" remains profoundly controversial, as the historiography of the subject demonstrates, and as the debates surrounding the bicentenary of the French Revolution of 1789 demonstrate even more unmistakably. What usually happens to revolutions sufficiently distant from the present--and two centuries are, by the news agency standards that dominate our information, almost beyond the range of the remembered past--is that they are either transformed into nonrevolutions--that is, integrated into historical continuity or excluded from it as insignificant temporary interruptions--or else they are celebrated by public rites of passage suitable to the occasions that mark the birth of nations and/or regimes. They remain controversial only among historians. Thus the English Revolution or revolutions of the seventeenth century has been tacitly eliminated from political discourse: even in the tercentenary year of what used to be called the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 and the constituting event of British parliamentary sovereignty, its presence in public rhetoric has been subdued and marginal. On the other hand, a celebratory consensus has marked the various bicentenaries connected with the American Revolution, and even opponents of those aspects of it which are still--or again--highly controversial, such as its deliberate refusal to give public recognition to religion, would not dream of using this as an argument against it. Its public face, jubilees and centenaries apart, is that of a rite of passage in the life of the nation, independence (celebrated on the Fourth of July) taking its place after first settlement (celebrated on Thanksgiving).

Attempts to apply these two techniques of eliminating the controversial aspects of the French Revolution have been made, by republicans and by the political right respectively, and the contention that it achieved little or nothing other than what would have happened without it, and thus constitutes not a major transforming set of events but only a sort of stumble on the long path of French history, is one of the main weapons in the intellectual war against those who wish to celebrate its bicentenary. Yet these attempts have failed. On the one hand, the revolution never gained the general retrospective consensus without which such events cannot become harmless national birthdays, not even after World War II briefly eliminated from the political scene that French Right that defined itself by its rejection of 1789. On the contrary, since the revolution inspired not only the Left of the relatively remote past but also the contemporary Left, it could not but remain contentious. As is quite evident from the pre-bicentenary debates in France, the traditional opponents of 1789 have been reinforced by the opponents of 1917; by reactionaries who would not disclaim that label, by liberals who certainly would. Yet the antirevolutionary attempt to demote the revolution, or shunt it onto a sidetrack of French historical development, has also failed, since, if it had succeeded, it would no longer need to be seriously argued. Indeed, the mere project of trying to prove that the French Revolution is not an altogether major event in modern history must strike non-Frenchmen as brave and quixotic--that is, as absurd.

The primary purpose of the passage is __________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

To entertain any theory about revolution," writes John Dunn, "--and it is not even possible to identify just what events do constitute revolutions without assuming some theory about the meaning of revolution--is to assume a political posture.... The value-free study of revolutions is a logical impossibility for those who live in the real world" (Dunn, 1972: 1-2). For the student of revolutions the problem is complicated by the fact that the political postures assumed spontaneously by those who write or speak about them, and, if not careful, by himself or herself, are not necessarily coherent or consistent. We live in an era when rapid and fundamental change has become the norm in everyday life, so that the terms "revolution" and "revolutionary" extend far beyond the field of political science. Moreover, common discourse identifies them, much in the eighteenth-century manner, with progress and the improvement of life, so that, as advertising agencies understand only too well, the word "revolutionary," when attached to a new microwave oven as distinct from a political regime, will sell the product more effectively, even among those most passionately committed to the defense of the status quo against subversion.

Nevertheless, the primary political meaning of "revolution" remains profoundly controversial, as the historiography of the subject demonstrates, and as the debates surrounding the bicentenary of the French Revolution of 1789 demonstrate even more unmistakably. What usually happens to revolutions sufficiently distant from the present--and two centuries are, by the news agency standards that dominate our information, almost beyond the range of the remembered past--is that they are either transformed into nonrevolutions--that is, integrated into historical continuity or excluded from it as insignificant temporary interruptions--or else they are celebrated by public rites of passage suitable to the occasions that mark the birth of nations and/or regimes. They remain controversial only among historians. Thus the English Revolution or revolutions of the seventeenth century has been tacitly eliminated from political discourse: even in the tercentenary year of what used to be called the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 and the constituting event of British parliamentary sovereignty, its presence in public rhetoric has been subdued and marginal. On the other hand, a celebratory consensus has marked the various bicentenaries connected with the American Revolution, and even opponents of those aspects of it which are still--or again--highly controversial, such as its deliberate refusal to give public recognition to religion, would not dream of using this as an argument against it. Its public face, jubilees and centenaries apart, is that of a rite of passage in the life of the nation, independence (celebrated on the Fourth of July) taking its place after first settlement (celebrated on Thanksgiving).

Attempts to apply these two techniques of eliminating the controversial aspects of the French Revolution have been made, by republicans and by the political right respectively, and the contention that it achieved little or nothing other than what would have happened without it, and thus constitutes not a major transforming set of events but only a sort of stumble on the long path of French history, is one of the main weapons in the intellectual war against those who wish to celebrate its bicentenary. Yet these attempts have failed. On the one hand, the revolution never gained the general retrospective consensus without which such events cannot become harmless national birthdays, not even after World War II briefly eliminated from the political scene that French Right that defined itself by its rejection of 1789. On the contrary, since the revolution inspired not only the Left of the relatively remote past but also the contemporary Left, it could not but remain contentious. As is quite evident from the pre-bicentenary debates in France, the traditional opponents of 1789 have been reinforced by the opponents of 1917; by reactionaries who would not disclaim that label, by liberals who certainly would. Yet the antirevolutionary attempt to demote the revolution, or shunt it onto a sidetrack of French historical development, has also failed, since, if it had succeeded, it would no longer need to be seriously argued. Indeed, the mere project of trying to prove that the French Revolution is not an altogether major event in modern history must strike non-Frenchmen as brave and quixotic--that is, as absurd.

The passage suggests that the genesis of the belittlement of rhetoric by some people is due to their __________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern linguists concern themselves with many different facets of language, from the physical properties of the sound waves in utterances to the intentions of speakers towards others in conversations and the social contexts in which conversations are embedded. The branches of linguistics are concerned with how languages are structured, how languages are used, and how they change.

Many views have been developed by linguists and philosophers to analyse languages. Those who wanted to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century adopted the "scientistic" view of language.

Of all the devices for dragooning the human spirit, the least clumsy was to procure its abortion in the womb of language; and those who were driven by the impulse to reduce the specifically human to a mechanical or animal regularity, continued to be increasingly irritated by the nature of the mother tongue and make it their point of attack.

Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to right action, it might also be a means to distort truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned. As the “scientist” thinkers believed that people should be regarded only as machines guided by logic, they considered rhetoric to be of low value; for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person. Some of the rules for the argumentative essay are part of cultural expectations for any kind of discourse or communicative act: a coherent discourse has a beginning (intro, setting up the argument), middle (the argument itself with examples, support of claims, support of prior research, and/or close analysis of material) , and an end (a conclusion that ties up the argument and/or suggests broader implications or wider significance of the "middle".) Rhetoric first addressed the rational side of a person, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is respect. Fully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a remarkable feature of rhetoric that it transcends the logical argumentative nature and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It tries to create an analogous situation to achieve it’s ends- by recalling relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances-real or fictional- that are similar to our own circumstances.

In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he argues that the expression of reason is man’s highest attribute, and that all good things can be abused, so rhetoric is no different because there are some who abuse it. He also gives us a great deal comfort in our despair over the continued abuse of rhetoric; he says that the abuse of rhetoric will never be as strong as the right and proper use is.

The same is the case with historical accounts and fables which are always in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.

Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. Furthermore, rhetoric is abstract because the basic skills of rhetoric apply across a wide range of situations. Any time you are in a situation that requires speech making, analysis, persuasion, detailed explanations, and so on, you are using rhetorical skills. Rhetoric, therefore, is a widespread ability that comes into play in many other subject areas. A teacher of biology, for instance, uses rhetoric, not in biology itself, but in the teaching and communicating of biology.

Rhetoric is important for it takes into account what the "scientistic" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naïve; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.

Rhetoric used in the context of poetry produced something called “the flowers of rhetoric.” The flowers of rhetoric were beautiful, interesting, or unique turns of phrase which decorated the poetry of the time. “Flowers of rhetoric” is synonymous with another term that is more familiar to us, i.e., something called “the figures of speech.” We still have the term “a figure of speech” today, but it means much less to us than it did in the Renaissance. Today we use the phrase “a figure of speech” to mean that it was something we didn’t really intend to say. It is a way to excuse an accidentally ill-mannered comment or something that is not quite politically correct. We say that it was just a figure of speech. We also use the term to refer to metaphors, similes, and several other language patterns. This usage, to identify language patterns, is at least accurate, but this still gives us a much diminished view of what figures of speech are. In the Renaissance, there were literally hundreds of language patterns that were considered figures of speech. Any elegant, unusual, or patterned turn of phrase was a figure of speech, and whole books were printed, such as Henry Peacham’s The Garden of Eloquence, listing and cataloguing all the figures of speech and examples of them taken from literature. Learning these patterns and employing them in poetry and letters was fundamental to the education and the culture of the Renaissance. It was a time when people in all educated walks of life were cultured and literary.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Magical realism provides the reader with a unique perspective of the world -we look on it with new eyes. The reader must go beyond reality to understand magical realism. Magical realism may be related to certain academic fields such as psychology because of the state of mind one must use to really know what is happening.

Magical realism can be characterized in many ways. Mainly, it depends on one's own opinion, but for me reading certain selections about it, one can get basically the same point of view from it. "Meticulous craftsmen all, one finds them In the same preoccupation with style and also the same transformation of the common and everyday into the awesome and unreal"(Flores 114). The "awesome and the unreal" are characteristics that usually represent what magical realism is. Many magical realists use it in their selections to give readers a brief idea about magical realism. It is not just the everyday word or meaning to life. It is an outlook on what life has to give one if he or she is willing to look further into it.

In the psychological field, Victor Frankl discusses something called "will-to-meaning." Frankl says that in one life meaning is love for one's children to tie to; in another life, a talent to be used; in a third, perhaps only lingering memories worth preserving. In his studies, he stated that people survive to weave those slender threads of a broken life into a firm pattern of meaning and responsibility. Frankl poses three different lives in his theory. Either a person could be living one of the three or he or she could be living all three at one time. People just do not realize the magic. If one cannot find his or her "will-to-meaning in life, Frankl says that the sufferer fails to find meaning and a sense of responsibility in his existence. Later on, Frankl puts an answer issue to this by saying "A human suddenly realizes he has nothing to lose except his so ridiculously naked life." Frankl titles this idea as a mixed flow of emotion and apathy that is simply arresting. Also, Frankl gave a good meaning to his theory by quoting Nietzsche, "He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how." That quote was a really moving statement to me.

In the story Like Water For Chocolate, a young woman named Tita was haunted by her mother when she died. The love for a man made her mother haunt her because of Tita's disobedience to her mother after she had died. In relation to Frankl's ideas to this story, Tita had a reason to live as well as Frankl did. Frankl lived to write about what he had learned. His family all died in concentration camps with no meaning to life whatsoever. Tita at first thought she had no reason to live until meeting the love of her life. As Nietzsche said, "He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."

Magical realism relates to certain academic fields such as psychology because of the state of mind one must use to really know what is happening. In Frankl's will-to-meaning, like magical realism, one has to have a realization of what is going on and a "why and how" attitude towards it. Both are based upon the "real and unreal" where a person look upon things with other minds, not just a person's own natural state (psychologically)-(magically). I think magical realism has become more popular over the last sixty years because it is shown to be a relation to things used today in our academic fields. I think that if it was not used then it would not be as fun to learn about it. When there are more perspectives, learning is a lot more interesting.

The passage suggests that to consider people as thinking machines is to consider them as __________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern linguists concern themselves with many different facets of language, from the physical properties of the sound waves in utterances to the intentions of speakers towards others in conversations and the social contexts in which conversations are embedded. The branches of linguistics are concerned with how languages are structured, how languages are used, and how they change.

Many views have been developed by linguists and philosophers to analyse languages. Those who wanted to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century adopted the "scientistic" view of language.

Of all the devices for dragooning the human spirit, the least clumsy was to procure its abortion in the womb of language; and those who were driven by the impulse to reduce the specifically human to a mechanical or animal regularity, continued to be increasingly irritated by the nature of the mother tongue and make it their point of attack.

Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to right action, it might also be a means to distort truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned. As the “scientist” thinkers believed that people should be regarded only as machines guided by logic, they considered rhetoric to be of low value; for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person. Some of the rules for the argumentative essay are part of cultural expectations for any kind of discourse or communicative act: a coherent discourse has a beginning (intro, setting up the argument), middle (the argument itself with examples, support of claims, support of prior research, and/or close analysis of material) , and an end (a conclusion that ties up the argument and/or suggests broader implications or wider significance of the "middle".) Rhetoric first addressed the rational side of a person, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is respect. Fully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a remarkable feature of rhetoric that it transcends the logical argumentative nature and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It tries to create an analogous situation to achieve it’s ends- by recalling relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances-real or fictional- that are similar to our own circumstances.

In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he argues that the expression of reason is man’s highest attribute, and that all good things can be abused, so rhetoric is no different because there are some who abuse it. He also gives us a great deal comfort in our despair over the continued abuse of rhetoric; he says that the abuse of rhetoric will never be as strong as the right and proper use is.

The same is the case with historical accounts and fables which are always in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.

Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. Furthermore, rhetoric is abstract because the basic skills of rhetoric apply across a wide range of situations. Any time you are in a situation that requires speech making, analysis, persuasion, detailed explanations, and so on, you are using rhetorical skills. Rhetoric, therefore, is a widespread ability that comes into play in many other subject areas. A teacher of biology, for instance, uses rhetoric, not in biology itself, but in the teaching and communicating of biology.

Rhetoric is important for it takes into account what the "scientistic" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naïve; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.

Rhetoric used in the context of poetry produced something called “the flowers of rhetoric.” The flowers of rhetoric were beautiful, interesting, or unique turns of phrase which decorated the poetry of the time. “Flowers of rhetoric” is synonymous with another term that is more familiar to us, i.e., something called “the figures of speech.” We still have the term “a figure of speech” today, but it means much less to us than it did in the Renaissance. Today we use the phrase “a figure of speech” to mean that it was something we didn’t really intend to say. It is a way to excuse an accidentally ill-mannered comment or something that is not quite politically correct. We say that it was just a figure of speech. We also use the term to refer to metaphors, similes, and several other language patterns. This usage, to identify language patterns, is at least accurate, but this still gives us a much diminished view of what figures of speech are. In the Renaissance, there were literally hundreds of language patterns that were considered figures of speech. Any elegant, unusual, or patterned turn of phrase was a figure of speech, and whole books were printed, such as Henry Peacham’s The Garden of Eloquence, listing and cataloguing all the figures of speech and examples of them taken from literature. Learning these patterns and employing them in poetry and letters was fundamental to the education and the culture of the Renaissance. It was a time when people in all educated walks of life were cultured and literary.

Which of the following best states the author's main point about logical argument?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern linguists concern themselves with many different facets of language, from the physical properties of the sound waves in utterances to the intentions of speakers towards others in conversations and the social contexts in which conversations are embedded. The branches of linguistics are concerned with how languages are structured, how languages are used, and how they change.

Many views have been developed by linguists and philosophers to analyse languages. Those who wanted to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century adopted the "scientistic" view of language.

Of all the devices for dragooning the human spirit, the least clumsy was to procure its abortion in the womb of language; and those who were driven by the impulse to reduce the specifically human to a mechanical or animal regularity, continued to be increasingly irritated by the nature of the mother tongue and make it their point of attack.

Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to right action, it might also be a means to distort truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned. As the “scientist” thinkers believed that people should be regarded only as machines guided by logic, they considered rhetoric to be of low value; for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person. Some of the rules for the argumentative essay are part of cultural expectations for any kind of discourse or communicative act: a coherent discourse has a beginning (intro, setting up the argument), middle (the argument itself with examples, support of claims, support of prior research, and/or close analysis of material) , and an end (a conclusion that ties up the argument and/or suggests broader implications or wider significance of the "middle".) Rhetoric first addressed the rational side of a person, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is respect. Fully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a remarkable feature of rhetoric that it transcends the logical argumentative nature and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It tries to create an analogous situation to achieve it’s ends- by recalling relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances-real or fictional- that are similar to our own circumstances.

In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he argues that the expression of reason is man’s highest attribute, and that all good things can be abused, so rhetoric is no different because there are some who abuse it. He also gives us a great deal comfort in our despair over the continued abuse of rhetoric; he says that the abuse of rhetoric will never be as strong as the right and proper use is.

The same is the case with historical accounts and fables which are always in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.

Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. Furthermore, rhetoric is abstract because the basic skills of rhetoric apply across a wide range of situations. Any time you are in a situation that requires speech making, analysis, persuasion, detailed explanations, and so on, you are using rhetorical skills. Rhetoric, therefore, is a widespread ability that comes into play in many other subject areas. A teacher of biology, for instance, uses rhetoric, not in biology itself, but in the teaching and communicating of biology.

Rhetoric is important for it takes into account what the "scientistic" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naïve; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.

Rhetoric used in the context of poetry produced something called “the flowers of rhetoric.” The flowers of rhetoric were beautiful, interesting, or unique turns of phrase which decorated the poetry of the time. “Flowers of rhetoric” is synonymous with another term that is more familiar to us, i.e., something called “the figures of speech.” We still have the term “a figure of speech” today, but it means much less to us than it did in the Renaissance. Today we use the phrase “a figure of speech” to mean that it was something we didn’t really intend to say. It is a way to excuse an accidentally ill-mannered comment or something that is not quite politically correct. We say that it was just a figure of speech. We also use the term to refer to metaphors, similes, and several other language patterns. This usage, to identify language patterns, is at least accurate, but this still gives us a much diminished view of what figures of speech are. In the Renaissance, there were literally hundreds of language patterns that were considered figures of speech. Any elegant, unusual, or patterned turn of phrase was a figure of speech, and whole books were printed, such as Henry Peacham’s The Garden of Eloquence, listing and cataloguing all the figures of speech and examples of them taken from literature. Learning these patterns and employing them in poetry and letters was fundamental to the education and the culture of the Renaissance. It was a time when people in all educated walks of life were cultured and literary.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Literary imagination has always challenged philosophy, as it has in the modern age, with its philosophies utopianism and disenchantment. The contest between two has been raging in Russia for some two hundred years, often taking the form of an antagonism between modernity and tradition, and it cuts through the heart of Tolstoy's fiction Tolstoy's fiction grew originally out of his diaries, in which he tried to understand his own feelings and actions so as to control them. Tolstoy's major work, War and Peace, appeared between the years 1865 and 1869. The epic tale depicted the story of five families against the background of Napoleon's invasion of Russia.

Tolstoy's other masterpiece, Anna Karenina (1873-77), told a tragic story of a married woman, who follows her lover, but finally commits suicide. Tolstoy juxtaposed in the work crises of family life with the quest for the meaning of life.

Of Tolstoy's two epic novels, the War and Peace has always been more popular than Anna Karenina, perhaps because it includes features of mythology that are accessible to readers. Though this story primarily deals with the interactions between various members of the Russian aristocracy before and during the war, the novel is interspersed with evenly spaced historical analysis by Tolstoy concerning such things as causes of war, sources of secular power, motivations for specific actions or instances of inaction during the French-Russian conflict, and explanations of societal phenomenon expressed vis-à-vis the mob.

Its subject (to use Bezukhov’s categories) is "life-as-spectacle," for readers, diverted by their various incidents, observe its hero In this sprawling epic narrative Tolstoy manages to accurately describe the trials and tribulations of life, brilliantly deconstruct the mythic figure of Napoleon, and attempt to explain the meaning of existence.

Napoleon primarily from without. The tragic Anna Karenina, however, presents “life-as-experience”: readers are asked to identify with the mind of Oblonsky, whose motivations render him not particularly likable hero. Death is an integral part of everybody's life and no matter who it is, everybody fears death. To come to terms with death is something that takes a lot of courage and a full understanding of oneself. Tolstoy in his novel, has revealed to us the effect that death can have on a person and advocates us to not succumb to the daily life of the world which we live in, because it is all a delusion. Yet if we live as naturally as possible, we can get a better grasp on the true essence of life as Levin does in the novel. He finds joy out of working and enjoying the fruits of his labor, instead of indulging himself in the materialism of the hypocritical aristocrats.

In addition, Anna Karenina more than the War and Peace, suggests the complexity of the gods’ involvement in human actions, and to the extent that modern readers find this complexity a needless complication, the Anna Karenina is satisfying than the War and Peace, with its simpler scheme of divine justice. Finally, since the Anna Karenina presents a historically verifiable action – Leningrad siege, the novel raises historical questions that are absent from the War and Peace's blithely imaginative world.

Leo Tolstoy writes from the perspective of a country in turmoil and how his social commentary is then closely intertwined with the more general search for personal fulfillment. The result is the timeless quality of the works that are still enjoyed by a wide readership today. It explores how it is this timeless quality of his work, based upon his search for meaning in life, that most prominently begs for Tolstoy's inclusion in today's literary canon.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Literary imagination has always challenged philosophy, as it has in the modern age, with its philosophies utopianism and disenchantment. The contest between two has been raging in Russia for some two hundred years, often taking the form of an antagonism between modernity and tradition, and it cuts through the heart of Tolstoy's fiction Tolstoy's fiction grew originally out of his diaries, in which he tried to understand his own feelings and actions so as to control them. Tolstoy's major work, War and Peace, appeared between the years 1865 and 1869. The epic tale depicted the story of five families against the background of Napoleon's invasion of Russia.

Tolstoy's other masterpiece, Anna Karenina (1873-77), told a tragic story of a married woman, who follows her lover, but finally commits suicide. Tolstoy juxtaposed in the work crises of family life with the quest for the meaning of life.

Of Tolstoy's two epic novels, the War and Peace has always been more popular than Anna Karenina, perhaps because it includes features of mythology that are accessible to readers. Though this story primarily deals with the interactions between various members of the Russian aristocracy before and during the war, the novel is interspersed with evenly spaced historical analysis by Tolstoy concerning such things as causes of war, sources of secular power, motivations for specific actions or instances of inaction during the French-Russian conflict, and explanations of societal phenomenon expressed vis-à-vis the mob.

Its subject (to use Bezukhov’s categories) is "life-as-spectacle," for readers, diverted by their various incidents, observe its hero In this sprawling epic narrative Tolstoy manages to accurately describe the trials and tribulations of life, brilliantly deconstruct the mythic figure of Napoleon, and attempt to explain the meaning of existence.

Napoleon primarily from without. The tragic Anna Karenina, however, presents “life-as-experience”: readers are asked to identify with the mind of Oblonsky, whose motivations render him not particularly likable hero. Death is an integral part of everybody's life and no matter who it is, everybody fears death. To come to terms with death is something that takes a lot of courage and a full understanding of oneself. Tolstoy in his novel, has revealed to us the effect that death can have on a person and advocates us to not succumb to the daily life of the world which we live in, because it is all a delusion. Yet if we live as naturally as possible, we can get a better grasp on the true essence of life as Levin does in the novel. He finds joy out of working and enjoying the fruits of his labor, instead of indulging himself in the materialism of the hypocritical aristocrats.

In addition, Anna Karenina more than the War and Peace, suggests the complexity of the gods’ involvement in human actions, and to the extent that modern readers find this complexity a needless complication, the Anna Karenina is satisfying than the War and Peace, with its simpler scheme of divine justice. Finally, since the Anna Karenina presents a historically verifiable action – Leningrad siege, the novel raises historical questions that are absent from the War and Peace's blithely imaginative world.

Leo Tolstoy writes from the perspective of a country in turmoil and how his social commentary is then closely intertwined with the more general search for personal fulfillment. The result is the timeless quality of the works that are still enjoyed by a wide readership today. It explores how it is this timeless quality of his work, based upon his search for meaning in life, that most prominently begs for Tolstoy's inclusion in today's literary canon.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Magical realism provides the reader with a unique perspective of the world -we look on it with new eyes. The reader must go beyond reality to understand magical realism. Magical realism may be related to certain academic fields such as psychology because of the state of mind one must use to really know what is happening.

Magical realism can be characterized in many ways. Mainly, it depends on one's own opinion, but for me reading certain selections about it, one can get basically the same point of view from it. "Meticulous craftsmen all, one finds them In the same preoccupation with style and also the same transformation of the common and everyday into the awesome and unreal"(Flores 114). The "awesome and the unreal" are characteristics that usually represent what magical realism is. Many magical realists use it in their selections to give readers a brief idea about magical realism. It is not just the everyday word or meaning to life. It is an outlook on what life has to give one if he or she is willing to look further into it.

In the psychological field, Victor Frankl discusses something called "will-to-meaning." Frankl says that in one life meaning is love for one's children to tie to; in another life, a talent to be used; in a third, perhaps only lingering memories worth preserving. In his studies, he stated that people survive to weave those slender threads of a broken life into a firm pattern of meaning and responsibility. Frankl poses three different lives in his theory. Either a person could be living one of the three or he or she could be living all three at one time. People just do not realize the magic. If one cannot find his or her "will-to-meaning in life, Frankl says that the sufferer fails to find meaning and a sense of responsibility in his existence. Later on, Frankl puts an answer issue to this by saying "A human suddenly realizes he has nothing to lose except his so ridiculously naked life." Frankl titles this idea as a mixed flow of emotion and apathy that is simply arresting. Also, Frankl gave a good meaning to his theory by quoting Nietzsche, "He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how." That quote was a really moving statement to me.

In the story Like Water For Chocolate, a young woman named Tita was haunted by her mother when she died. The love for a man made her mother haunt her because of Tita's disobedience to her mother after she had died. In relation to Frankl's ideas to this story, Tita had a reason to live as well as Frankl did. Frankl lived to write about what he had learned. His family all died in concentration camps with no meaning to life whatsoever. Tita at first thought she had no reason to live until meeting the love of her life. As Nietzsche said, "He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."

Magical realism relates to certain academic fields such as psychology because of the state of mind one must use to really know what is happening. In Frankl's will-to-meaning, like magical realism, one has to have a realization of what is going on and a "why and how" attitude towards it. Both are based upon the "real and unreal" where a person look upon things with other minds, not just a person's own natural state (psychologically)-(magically). I think magical realism has become more popular over the last sixty years because it is shown to be a relation to things used today in our academic fields. I think that if it was not used then it would not be as fun to learn about it. When there are more perspectives, learning is a lot more interesting.

It can be inferred from the passage that a reader of the Anna Karenina is likely to have trouble identifying with the novels hero for which of the following reasons?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Literary imagination has always challenged philosophy, as it has in the modern age, with its philosophies utopianism and disenchantment. The contest between two has been raging in Russia for some two hundred years, often taking the form of an antagonism between modernity and tradition, and it cuts through the heart of Tolstoy's fiction Tolstoy's fiction grew originally out of his diaries, in which he tried to understand his own feelings and actions so as to control them. Tolstoy's major work, War and Peace, appeared between the years 1865 and 1869. The epic tale depicted the story of five families against the background of Napoleon's invasion of Russia.

Tolstoy's other masterpiece, Anna Karenina (1873-77), told a tragic story of a married woman, who follows her lover, but finally commits suicide. Tolstoy juxtaposed in the work crises of family life with the quest for the meaning of life.

Of Tolstoy's two epic novels, the War and Peace has always been more popular than Anna Karenina, perhaps because it includes features of mythology that are accessible to readers. Though this story primarily deals with the interactions between various members of the Russian aristocracy before and during the war, the novel is interspersed with evenly spaced historical analysis by Tolstoy concerning such things as causes of war, sources of secular power, motivations for specific actions or instances of inaction during the French-Russian conflict, and explanations of societal phenomenon expressed vis-à-vis the mob.

Its subject (to use Bezukhov’s categories) is "life-as-spectacle," for readers, diverted by their various incidents, observe its hero In this sprawling epic narrative Tolstoy manages to accurately describe the trials and tribulations of life, brilliantly deconstruct the mythic figure of Napoleon, and attempt to explain the meaning of existence.

Napoleon primarily from without. The tragic Anna Karenina, however, presents “life-as-experience”: readers are asked to identify with the mind of Oblonsky, whose motivations render him not particularly likable hero. Death is an integral part of everybody's life and no matter who it is, everybody fears death. To come to terms with death is something that takes a lot of courage and a full understanding of oneself. Tolstoy in his novel, has revealed to us the effect that death can have on a person and advocates us to not succumb to the daily life of the world which we live in, because it is all a delusion. Yet if we live as naturally as possible, we can get a better grasp on the true essence of life as Levin does in the novel. He finds joy out of working and enjoying the fruits of his labor, instead of indulging himself in the materialism of the hypocritical aristocrats.

In addition, Anna Karenina more than the War and Peace, suggests the complexity of the gods’ involvement in human actions, and to the extent that modern readers find this complexity a needless complication, the Anna Karenina is satisfying than the War and Peace, with its simpler scheme of divine justice. Finally, since the Anna Karenina presents a historically verifiable action – Leningrad siege, the novel raises historical questions that are absent from the War and Peace's blithely imaginative world.

Leo Tolstoy writes from the perspective of a country in turmoil and how his social commentary is then closely intertwined with the more general search for personal fulfillment. The result is the timeless quality of the works that are still enjoyed by a wide readership today. It explores how it is this timeless quality of his work, based upon his search for meaning in life, that most prominently begs for Tolstoy's inclusion in today's literary canon.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern linguists concern themselves with many different facets of language, from the physical properties of the sound waves in utterances to the intentions of speakers towards others in conversations and the social contexts in which conversations are embedded. The branches of linguistics are concerned with how languages are structured, how languages are used, and how they change.

Many views have been developed by linguists and philosophers to analyse languages. Those who wanted to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century adopted the "scientistic" view of language.

Of all the devices for dragooning the human spirit, the least clumsy was to procure its abortion in the womb of language; and those who were driven by the impulse to reduce the specifically human to a mechanical or animal regularity, continued to be increasingly irritated by the nature of the mother tongue and make it their point of attack.

Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to right action, it might also be a means to distort truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned. As the “scientist” thinkers believed that people should be regarded only as machines guided by logic, they considered rhetoric to be of low value; for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person. Some of the rules for the argumentative essay are part of cultural expectations for any kind of discourse or communicative act: a coherent discourse has a beginning (intro, setting up the argument), middle (the argument itself with examples, support of claims, support of prior research, and/or close analysis of material) , and an end (a conclusion that ties up the argument and/or suggests broader implications or wider significance of the "middle".) Rhetoric first addressed the rational side of a person, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is respect. Fully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a remarkable feature of rhetoric that it transcends the logical argumentative nature and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It tries to create an analogous situation to achieve it’s ends- by recalling relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances-real or fictional- that are similar to our own circumstances.

In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he argues that the expression of reason is man’s highest attribute, and that all good things can be abused, so rhetoric is no different because there are some who abuse it. He also gives us a great deal comfort in our despair over the continued abuse of rhetoric; he says that the abuse of rhetoric will never be as strong as the right and proper use is.

The same is the case with historical accounts and fables which are always in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.

Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. Furthermore, rhetoric is abstract because the basic skills of rhetoric apply across a wide range of situations. Any time you are in a situation that requires speech making, analysis, persuasion, detailed explanations, and so on, you are using rhetorical skills. Rhetoric, therefore, is a widespread ability that comes into play in many other subject areas. A teacher of biology, for instance, uses rhetoric, not in biology itself, but in the teaching and communicating of biology.

Rhetoric is important for it takes into account what the "scientistic" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naïve; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.

Rhetoric used in the context of poetry produced something called “the flowers of rhetoric.” The flowers of rhetoric were beautiful, interesting, or unique turns of phrase which decorated the poetry of the time. “Flowers of rhetoric” is synonymous with another term that is more familiar to us, i.e., something called “the figures of speech.” We still have the term “a figure of speech” today, but it means much less to us than it did in the Renaissance. Today we use the phrase “a figure of speech” to mean that it was something we didn’t really intend to say. It is a way to excuse an accidentally ill-mannered comment or something that is not quite politically correct. We say that it was just a figure of speech. We also use the term to refer to metaphors, similes, and several other language patterns. This usage, to identify language patterns, is at least accurate, but this still gives us a much diminished view of what figures of speech are. In the Renaissance, there were literally hundreds of language patterns that were considered figures of speech. Any elegant, unusual, or patterned turn of phrase was a figure of speech, and whole books were printed, such as Henry Peacham’s The Garden of Eloquence, listing and cataloguing all the figures of speech and examples of them taken from literature. Learning these patterns and employing them in poetry and letters was fundamental to the education and the culture of the Renaissance. It was a time when people in all educated walks of life were cultured and literary.

Which of the following persuasive devices is not used in the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern linguists concern themselves with many different facets of language, from the physical properties of the sound waves in utterances to the intentions of speakers towards others in conversations and the social contexts in which conversations are embedded. The branches of linguistics are concerned with how languages are structured, how languages are used, and how they change.

Many views have been developed by linguists and philosophers to analyse languages. Those who wanted to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century adopted the "scientistic" view of language.

Of all the devices for dragooning the human spirit, the least clumsy was to procure its abortion in the womb of language; and those who were driven by the impulse to reduce the specifically human to a mechanical or animal regularity, continued to be increasingly irritated by the nature of the mother tongue and make it their point of attack.

Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to right action, it might also be a means to distort truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned. As the “scientist” thinkers believed that people should be regarded only as machines guided by logic, they considered rhetoric to be of low value; for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person. Some of the rules for the argumentative essay are part of cultural expectations for any kind of discourse or communicative act: a coherent discourse has a beginning (intro, setting up the argument), middle (the argument itself with examples, support of claims, support of prior research, and/or close analysis of material) , and an end (a conclusion that ties up the argument and/or suggests broader implications or wider significance of the "middle".) Rhetoric first addressed the rational side of a person, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is respect. Fully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a remarkable feature of rhetoric that it transcends the logical argumentative nature and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It tries to create an analogous situation to achieve it’s ends- by recalling relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances-real or fictional- that are similar to our own circumstances.

In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he argues that the expression of reason is man’s highest attribute, and that all good things can be abused, so rhetoric is no different because there are some who abuse it. He also gives us a great deal comfort in our despair over the continued abuse of rhetoric; he says that the abuse of rhetoric will never be as strong as the right and proper use is.

The same is the case with historical accounts and fables which are always in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.

Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. Furthermore, rhetoric is abstract because the basic skills of rhetoric apply across a wide range of situations. Any time you are in a situation that requires speech making, analysis, persuasion, detailed explanations, and so on, you are using rhetorical skills. Rhetoric, therefore, is a widespread ability that comes into play in many other subject areas. A teacher of biology, for instance, uses rhetoric, not in biology itself, but in the teaching and communicating of biology.

Rhetoric is important for it takes into account what the "scientistic" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naïve; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.

Rhetoric used in the context of poetry produced something called “the flowers of rhetoric.” The flowers of rhetoric were beautiful, interesting, or unique turns of phrase which decorated the poetry of the time. “Flowers of rhetoric” is synonymous with another term that is more familiar to us, i.e., something called “the figures of speech.” We still have the term “a figure of speech” today, but it means much less to us than it did in the Renaissance. Today we use the phrase “a figure of speech” to mean that it was something we didn’t really intend to say. It is a way to excuse an accidentally ill-mannered comment or something that is not quite politically correct. We say that it was just a figure of speech. We also use the term to refer to metaphors, similes, and several other language patterns. This usage, to identify language patterns, is at least accurate, but this still gives us a much diminished view of what figures of speech are. In the Renaissance, there were literally hundreds of language patterns that were considered figures of speech. Any elegant, unusual, or patterned turn of phrase was a figure of speech, and whole books were printed, such as Henry Peacham’s The Garden of Eloquence, listing and cataloguing all the figures of speech and examples of them taken from literature. Learning these patterns and employing them in poetry and letters was fundamental to the education and the culture of the Renaissance. It was a time when people in all educated walks of life were cultured and literary.

The passage is primarily concerned with __________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Literary imagination has always challenged philosophy, as it has in the modern age, with its philosophies utopianism and disenchantment. The contest between two has been raging in Russia for some two hundred years, often taking the form of an antagonism between modernity and tradition, and it cuts through the heart of Tolstoy's fiction Tolstoy's fiction grew originally out of his diaries, in which he tried to understand his own feelings and actions so as to control them. Tolstoy's major work, War and Peace, appeared between the years 1865 and 1869. The epic tale depicted the story of five families against the background of Napoleon's invasion of Russia.

Tolstoy's other masterpiece, Anna Karenina (1873-77), told a tragic story of a married woman, who follows her lover, but finally commits suicide. Tolstoy juxtaposed in the work crises of family life with the quest for the meaning of life.

Of Tolstoy's two epic novels, the War and Peace has always been more popular than Anna Karenina, perhaps because it includes features of mythology that are accessible to readers. Though this story primarily deals with the interactions between various members of the Russian aristocracy before and during the war, the novel is interspersed with evenly spaced historical analysis by Tolstoy concerning such things as causes of war, sources of secular power, motivations for specific actions or instances of inaction during the French-Russian conflict, and explanations of societal phenomenon expressed vis-à-vis the mob.

Its subject (to use Bezukhov’s categories) is "life-as-spectacle," for readers, diverted by their various incidents, observe its hero In this sprawling epic narrative Tolstoy manages to accurately describe the trials and tribulations of life, brilliantly deconstruct the mythic figure of Napoleon, and attempt to explain the meaning of existence.

Napoleon primarily from without. The tragic Anna Karenina, however, presents “life-as-experience”: readers are asked to identify with the mind of Oblonsky, whose motivations render him not particularly likable hero. Death is an integral part of everybody's life and no matter who it is, everybody fears death. To come to terms with death is something that takes a lot of courage and a full understanding of oneself. Tolstoy in his novel, has revealed to us the effect that death can have on a person and advocates us to not succumb to the daily life of the world which we live in, because it is all a delusion. Yet if we live as naturally as possible, we can get a better grasp on the true essence of life as Levin does in the novel. He finds joy out of working and enjoying the fruits of his labor, instead of indulging himself in the materialism of the hypocritical aristocrats.

In addition, Anna Karenina more than the War and Peace, suggests the complexity of the gods’ involvement in human actions, and to the extent that modern readers find this complexity a needless complication, the Anna Karenina is satisfying than the War and Peace, with its simpler scheme of divine justice. Finally, since the Anna Karenina presents a historically verifiable action – Leningrad siege, the novel raises historical questions that are absent from the War and Peace's blithely imaginative world.

Leo Tolstoy writes from the perspective of a country in turmoil and how his social commentary is then closely intertwined with the more general search for personal fulfillment. The result is the timeless quality of the works that are still enjoyed by a wide readership today. It explores how it is this timeless quality of his work, based upon his search for meaning in life, that most prominently begs for Tolstoy's inclusion in today's literary canon.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Magical realism provides the reader with a unique perspective of the world -we look on it with new eyes. The reader must go beyond reality to understand magical realism. Magical realism may be related to certain academic fields such as psychology because of the state of mind one must use to really know what is happening.

Magical realism can be characterized in many ways. Mainly, it depends on one's own opinion, but for me reading certain selections about it, one can get basically the same point of view from it. "Meticulous craftsmen all, one finds them In the same preoccupation with style and also the same transformation of the common and everyday into the awesome and unreal"(Flores 114). The "awesome and the unreal" are characteristics that usually represent what magical realism is. Many magical realists use it in their selections to give readers a brief idea about magical realism. It is not just the everyday word or meaning to life. It is an outlook on what life has to give one if he or she is willing to look further into it.

In the psychological field, Victor Frankl discusses something called "will-to-meaning." Frankl says that in one life meaning is love for one's children to tie to; in another life, a talent to be used; in a third, perhaps only lingering memories worth preserving. In his studies, he stated that people survive to weave those slender threads of a broken life into a firm pattern of meaning and responsibility. Frankl poses three different lives in his theory. Either a person could be living one of the three or he or she could be living all three at one time. People just do not realize the magic. If one cannot find his or her "will-to-meaning in life, Frankl says that the sufferer fails to find meaning and a sense of responsibility in his existence. Later on, Frankl puts an answer issue to this by saying "A human suddenly realizes he has nothing to lose except his so ridiculously naked life." Frankl titles this idea as a mixed flow of emotion and apathy that is simply arresting. Also, Frankl gave a good meaning to his theory by quoting Nietzsche, "He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how." That quote was a really moving statement to me.

In the story Like Water For Chocolate, a young woman named Tita was haunted by her mother when she died. The love for a man made her mother haunt her because of Tita's disobedience to her mother after she had died. In relation to Frankl's ideas to this story, Tita had a reason to live as well as Frankl did. Frankl lived to write about what he had learned. His family all died in concentration camps with no meaning to life whatsoever. Tita at first thought she had no reason to live until meeting the love of her life. As Nietzsche said, "He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."

Magical realism relates to certain academic fields such as psychology because of the state of mind one must use to really know what is happening. In Frankl's will-to-meaning, like magical realism, one has to have a realization of what is going on and a "why and how" attitude towards it. Both are based upon the "real and unreal" where a person look upon things with other minds, not just a person's own natural state (psychologically)-(magically). I think magical realism has become more popular over the last sixty years because it is shown to be a relation to things used today in our academic fields. I think that if it was not used then it would not be as fun to learn about it. When there are more perspectives, learning is a lot more interesting.