Some of the prime infirmities that the passage seems to suffer from are because

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

A philosopher once remarked that the difference between a bee and an architect is that the architect, unlike the bee, erects a structure in the mind before translating it into reality. Human civilization has taken considerable time to attain the stage of the architect. However, having got there, the contours of human evolution are determined by a continuous clash of ideas in all spheres of endeavor. The philosophical divide between materialism and idealism is often erroneously portrayed as matter versus mind. It is, in fact, a battle between the mind or consciousness as the highest form of matter and consciousness independent of the human body and, in that sense, cosmic in nature. While advances in modern science from astrophysics micro-genetic engineering reconfirm the former, the battle between sects of ideas, or ideology, continues to shape advances in every field. The answer to Descarte’s famous postulate ‘I think, therefore, I am’ is ‘I am, therefore, I think’.      
Ideology represents the structure of ideas that seeks to influence the course of human development. It not merely remains relevant, but also becomes pivotal in shaping the future. Presuming that the goal of humanity is to seek emancipation from all forms of bondage, the realization of that quest lies in Marxism.
Marxism is unique in that it can be transcended only when its agenda is realized. This is because its understanding of capitalism is by itself thorough enough for it to comprehend the historical possibilities that lie beyond it. Hence Marxism will be rendered superfluous only when capitalism, the object of its analysis, is itself superseded.
Put another way, the uniqueness of Marxism lies in the fact that all so-called theoretical advances, which supposedly render it obsolete, actually represent throwbacks to still earlier theories superseded by it. Alternatively, these are exaggerations of some particular aspects inherent in Marxism, but dressed in a new garb. These should properly be assimilated within Marxism. ‘Post-modernist’ or ‘post-Marxist’ theories which, at their best, emphasize a moral–ethical stance on social issues, represent pre-Marxist notions of social reformism, egalitarianism or progressive interventionism. On the other hand, certain reformist theories like Keynesianism, based on insights into the functioning of the capitalist economy, unknowingly recall insights actually contained in though not adequately developed within Marxism. It is not surprising that the Polish economist Michael Kalecki, by training an engineer whose only introduction to economics was Marx’s Capital, independently arrived at the so-called Keynesian Revolution.
Marx was not unique on account of subjective qualities that made him superior to other thinkers. What was remarkable was his approach to the analysis of capitalism and the unearthing of certain tendencies that he said were ‘immanent’ in capitalist social relations. The capitalist systems function in a manner that is not merely independent of the will and consciousness of its participants. Indeed, it makes the participants, whether capitalists or workers, victims of ‘alienation’ and mere personifications of the elements through which its inherent logic works itself out.

The author says Marxism will become superfluous only when capitalism is superseded. What does he want to say?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

A philosopher once remarked that the difference between a bee and an architect is that the architect, unlike the bee, erects a structure in the mind before translating it into reality. Human civilization has taken considerable time to attain the stage of the architect. However, having got there, the contours of human evolution are determined by a continuous clash of ideas in all spheres of endeavor. The philosophical divide between materialism and idealism is often erroneously portrayed as matter versus mind. It is, in fact, a battle between the mind or consciousness as the highest form of matter and consciousness independent of the human body and, in that sense, cosmic in nature. While advances in modern science from astrophysics micro-genetic engineering reconfirm the former, the battle between sects of ideas, or ideology, continues to shape advances in every field. The answer to Descarte’s famous postulate ‘I think, therefore, I am’ is ‘I am, therefore, I think’.      
Ideology represents the structure of ideas that seeks to influence the course of human development. It not merely remains relevant, but also becomes pivotal in shaping the future. Presuming that the goal of humanity is to seek emancipation from all forms of bondage, the realization of that quest lies in Marxism.
Marxism is unique in that it can be transcended only when its agenda is realized. This is because its understanding of capitalism is by itself thorough enough for it to comprehend the historical possibilities that lie beyond it. Hence Marxism will be rendered superfluous only when capitalism, the object of its analysis, is itself superseded.
Put another way, the uniqueness of Marxism lies in the fact that all so-called theoretical advances, which supposedly render it obsolete, actually represent throwbacks to still earlier theories superseded by it. Alternatively, these are exaggerations of some particular aspects inherent in Marxism, but dressed in a new garb. These should properly be assimilated within Marxism. ‘Post-modernist’ or ‘post-Marxist’ theories which, at their best, emphasize a moral–ethical stance on social issues, represent pre-Marxist notions of social reformism, egalitarianism or progressive interventionism. On the other hand, certain reformist theories like Keynesianism, based on insights into the functioning of the capitalist economy, unknowingly recall insights actually contained in though not adequately developed within Marxism. It is not surprising that the Polish economist Michael Kalecki, by training an engineer whose only introduction to economics was Marx’s Capital, independently arrived at the so-called Keynesian Revolution.
Marx was not unique on account of subjective qualities that made him superior to other thinkers. What was remarkable was his approach to the analysis of capitalism and the unearthing of certain tendencies that he said were ‘immanent’ in capitalist social relations. The capitalist systems function in a manner that is not merely independent of the will and consciousness of its participants. Indeed, it makes the participants, whether capitalists or workers, victims of ‘alienation’ and mere personifications of the elements through which its inherent logic works itself out.

According to the passage what separates bees from humans is

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

A philosopher once remarked that the difference between a bee and an architect is that the architect, unlike the bee, erects a structure in the mind before translating it into reality. Human civilization has taken considerable time to attain the stage of the architect. However, having got there, the contours of human evolution are determined by a continuous clash of ideas in all spheres of endeavor. The philosophical divide between materialism and idealism is often erroneously portrayed as matter versus mind. It is, in fact, a battle between the mind or consciousness as the highest form of matter and consciousness independent of the human body and, in that sense, cosmic in nature. While advances in modern science from astrophysics micro-genetic engineering reconfirm the former, the battle between sects of ideas, or ideology, continues to shape advances in every field. The answer to Descarte’s famous postulate ‘I think, therefore, I am’ is ‘I am, therefore, I think’.      
Ideology represents the structure of ideas that seeks to influence the course of human development. It not merely remains relevant, but also becomes pivotal in shaping the future. Presuming that the goal of humanity is to seek emancipation from all forms of bondage, the realization of that quest lies in Marxism.
Marxism is unique in that it can be transcended only when its agenda is realized. This is because its understanding of capitalism is by itself thorough enough for it to comprehend the historical possibilities that lie beyond it. Hence Marxism will be rendered superfluous only when capitalism, the object of its analysis, is itself superseded.
Put another way, the uniqueness of Marxism lies in the fact that all so-called theoretical advances, which supposedly render it obsolete, actually represent throwbacks to still earlier theories superseded by it. Alternatively, these are exaggerations of some particular aspects inherent in Marxism, but dressed in a new garb. These should properly be assimilated within Marxism. ‘Post-modernist’ or ‘post-Marxist’ theories which, at their best, emphasize a moral–ethical stance on social issues, represent pre-Marxist notions of social reformism, egalitarianism or progressive interventionism. On the other hand, certain reformist theories like Keynesianism, based on insights into the functioning of the capitalist economy, unknowingly recall insights actually contained in though not adequately developed within Marxism. It is not surprising that the Polish economist Michael Kalecki, by training an engineer whose only introduction to economics was Marx’s Capital, independently arrived at the so-called Keynesian Revolution.
Marx was not unique on account of subjective qualities that made him superior to other thinkers. What was remarkable was his approach to the analysis of capitalism and the unearthing of certain tendencies that he said were ‘immanent’ in capitalist social relations. The capitalist systems function in a manner that is not merely independent of the will and consciousness of its participants. Indeed, it makes the participants, whether capitalists or workers, victims of ‘alienation’ and mere personifications of the elements through which its inherent logic works itself out.

The writer hints at a common thread running through Aristotle's Poetics and Politics when in fact the two move on two different planes. Identify the common thread.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The first claim of the Poetics on our attention, long before we come to the problematic passages, is that it is the earliest surviving treatise to record and distinguish systematically one poetic “kind” from another. In doing this, Aristotle was describing as he knew it in Greece where poets usually competed for prizes in this or that class or “kind”. We know that his Politics was founded on the study, in detail, of the history and constitutions of 158 Greek states, and there is a good reason to believe that the Poetics was preceded by a similar examination of Greek plays; we have to remember the number, richness and variety of the plays available to Aristotle, compared with the minute proportion of Greek plays that have survived to us. He took over the kinds of literature as he found them; and by perpetuating them left a framework of reference for all European criticism ever since.
For it is largely through Poetics, though not because of it, that the main poetic “kinds” are still distinguished, even in their very names, through all the literatures of Europe, as Tragedy, Comedy, Epic and Lyric. In the main European languages these words are taken over from Greek merely transliterated and adapted to the appropriate grammatical shape. Whatever later forms, or kinds, may have been since developed, these have persisted, and (what is more) these names are still in constant use in the critical judgement even of kinds of literature that were unknown to Aristotle. Thus, a medieval verse Romance can hardly be discussed without reference to, and comparison with, Epic; even if the reason for mentioning Epic is to point the differences. A modern fictional narrative in prose, usually in this country called a “novel” (from the Italian), but in French called a roman (with a throwback to medieval Romance)—even a novel can hardly be discussed without using the terms Tragedy, Comedy, Epic and Lyrics—or the adjectives derived from them—as the quickest means of suggesting its character, or certain qualities in its various parts, or some aspect of its purposes or treatment. Even in a state of European literature in which the “kinds” are not strictly adhered to, the traditional kinds as distinguished by Aristotle still have vitality in helping an author to define his own purposes and methods, and in helping a critic to interpret them.
Also, quite apart from these words, which have been transliterated into the European languages, nearly all the leading critical ideas and distinctions used by Aristotle have been translated and still have a vital currency. Confining ourselves to dramatic criticism only, consider merely the terms plot, character, complication, denouement, episode, chorus, unity of action (to go no further), and ask how criticism could proceed without them. One of the main reasons why the Poetics should be read at the very beginning of a university course in literature is that it shows these essential current terms in their earliest formal context, related to a literature that one can read, at least in translation.
That word ‘related’ is very important. It is a means of accustoming oneself from the beginning to the fact that critical terms are relative, not absolute; that they need examination (not only in Aristotle but always, everywhere) in the light of the literature to which they refer and of the special purposes for which the critic himself is using them. This is just as true of modern criticism now—even of book-reviews in the weekly press—as it is of Aristotle himself, or, say, of Sidney or Dryden. Even though the words may remain in constant use in the same language, unchanged in form, yet their exact reference to the literature, and the nuance which they imply to the mind of the critic who uses them, may change, and frequently do change. The language of criticism is not a permanent, fixed, scientific vocabulary which, when once learnt, has merely to be correctly applied. It is constantly shifting; and it is the business of a trained mind, in writing or thinking of literature, to be alert to its shifts when they appear in the works of others, and to use the terms themselves carefully and studiously, in order that, so far as may be, the resulting criticism may make apparent the sense in which its own terminology is to be understood. That is the ideal; even if it is an ideal which scarcely any critic has ever attained.

This essay on Aristotle's Poetics is

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The first claim of the Poetics on our attention, long before we come to the problematic passages, is that it is the earliest surviving treatise to record and distinguish systematically one poetic “kind” from another. In doing this, Aristotle was describing as he knew it in Greece where poets usually competed for prizes in this or that class or “kind”. We know that his Politics was founded on the study, in detail, of the history and constitutions of 158 Greek states, and there is a good reason to believe that the Poetics was preceded by a similar examination of Greek plays; we have to remember the number, richness and variety of the plays available to Aristotle, compared with the minute proportion of Greek plays that have survived to us. He took over the kinds of literature as he found them; and by perpetuating them left a framework of reference for all European criticism ever since.
For it is largely through Poetics, though not because of it, that the main poetic “kinds” are still distinguished, even in their very names, through all the literatures of Europe, as Tragedy, Comedy, Epic and Lyric. In the main European languages these words are taken over from Greek merely transliterated and adapted to the appropriate grammatical shape. Whatever later forms, or kinds, may have been since developed, these have persisted, and (what is more) these names are still in constant use in the critical judgement even of kinds of literature that were unknown to Aristotle. Thus, a medieval verse Romance can hardly be discussed without reference to, and comparison with, Epic; even if the reason for mentioning Epic is to point the differences. A modern fictional narrative in prose, usually in this country called a “novel” (from the Italian), but in French called a roman (with a throwback to medieval Romance)—even a novel can hardly be discussed without using the terms Tragedy, Comedy, Epic and Lyrics—or the adjectives derived from them—as the quickest means of suggesting its character, or certain qualities in its various parts, or some aspect of its purposes or treatment. Even in a state of European literature in which the “kinds” are not strictly adhered to, the traditional kinds as distinguished by Aristotle still have vitality in helping an author to define his own purposes and methods, and in helping a critic to interpret them.
Also, quite apart from these words, which have been transliterated into the European languages, nearly all the leading critical ideas and distinctions used by Aristotle have been translated and still have a vital currency. Confining ourselves to dramatic criticism only, consider merely the terms plot, character, complication, denouement, episode, chorus, unity of action (to go no further), and ask how criticism could proceed without them. One of the main reasons why the Poetics should be read at the very beginning of a university course in literature is that it shows these essential current terms in their earliest formal context, related to a literature that one can read, at least in translation.
That word ‘related’ is very important. It is a means of accustoming oneself from the beginning to the fact that critical terms are relative, not absolute; that they need examination (not only in Aristotle but always, everywhere) in the light of the literature to which they refer and of the special purposes for which the critic himself is using them. This is just as true of modern criticism now—even of book-reviews in the weekly press—as it is of Aristotle himself, or, say, of Sidney or Dryden. Even though the words may remain in constant use in the same language, unchanged in form, yet their exact reference to the literature, and the nuance which they imply to the mind of the critic who uses them, may change, and frequently do change. The language of criticism is not a permanent, fixed, scientific vocabulary which, when once learnt, has merely to be correctly applied. It is constantly shifting; and it is the business of a trained mind, in writing or thinking of literature, to be alert to its shifts when they appear in the works of others, and to use the terms themselves carefully and studiously, in order that, so far as may be, the resulting criticism may make apparent the sense in which its own terminology is to be understood. That is the ideal; even if it is an ideal which scarcely any critic has ever attained.

What can definitely not be inferred from the passage is that

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The first claim of the Poetics on our attention, long before we come to the problematic passages, is that it is the earliest surviving treatise to record and distinguish systematically one poetic “kind” from another. In doing this, Aristotle was describing as he knew it in Greece where poets usually competed for prizes in this or that class or “kind”. We know that his Politics was founded on the study, in detail, of the history and constitutions of 158 Greek states, and there is a good reason to believe that the Poetics was preceded by a similar examination of Greek plays; we have to remember the number, richness and variety of the plays available to Aristotle, compared with the minute proportion of Greek plays that have survived to us. He took over the kinds of literature as he found them; and by perpetuating them left a framework of reference for all European criticism ever since.
For it is largely through Poetics, though not because of it, that the main poetic “kinds” are still distinguished, even in their very names, through all the literatures of Europe, as Tragedy, Comedy, Epic and Lyric. In the main European languages these words are taken over from Greek merely transliterated and adapted to the appropriate grammatical shape. Whatever later forms, or kinds, may have been since developed, these have persisted, and (what is more) these names are still in constant use in the critical judgement even of kinds of literature that were unknown to Aristotle. Thus, a medieval verse Romance can hardly be discussed without reference to, and comparison with, Epic; even if the reason for mentioning Epic is to point the differences. A modern fictional narrative in prose, usually in this country called a “novel” (from the Italian), but in French called a roman (with a throwback to medieval Romance)—even a novel can hardly be discussed without using the terms Tragedy, Comedy, Epic and Lyrics—or the adjectives derived from them—as the quickest means of suggesting its character, or certain qualities in its various parts, or some aspect of its purposes or treatment. Even in a state of European literature in which the “kinds” are not strictly adhered to, the traditional kinds as distinguished by Aristotle still have vitality in helping an author to define his own purposes and methods, and in helping a critic to interpret them.
Also, quite apart from these words, which have been transliterated into the European languages, nearly all the leading critical ideas and distinctions used by Aristotle have been translated and still have a vital currency. Confining ourselves to dramatic criticism only, consider merely the terms plot, character, complication, denouement, episode, chorus, unity of action (to go no further), and ask how criticism could proceed without them. One of the main reasons why the Poetics should be read at the very beginning of a university course in literature is that it shows these essential current terms in their earliest formal context, related to a literature that one can read, at least in translation.
That word ‘related’ is very important. It is a means of accustoming oneself from the beginning to the fact that critical terms are relative, not absolute; that they need examination (not only in Aristotle but always, everywhere) in the light of the literature to which they refer and of the special purposes for which the critic himself is using them. This is just as true of modern criticism now—even of book-reviews in the weekly press—as it is of Aristotle himself, or, say, of Sidney or Dryden. Even though the words may remain in constant use in the same language, unchanged in form, yet their exact reference to the literature, and the nuance which they imply to the mind of the critic who uses them, may change, and frequently do change. The language of criticism is not a permanent, fixed, scientific vocabulary which, when once learnt, has merely to be correctly applied. It is constantly shifting; and it is the business of a trained mind, in writing or thinking of literature, to be alert to its shifts when they appear in the works of others, and to use the terms themselves carefully and studiously, in order that, so far as may be, the resulting criticism may make apparent the sense in which its own terminology is to be understood. That is the ideal; even if it is an ideal which scarcely any critic has ever attained.

The writer says 'critical terms are relative, not absolute.' Is that what the passage leads to?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The first claim of the Poetics on our attention, long before we come to the problematic passages, is that it is the earliest surviving treatise to record and distinguish systematically one poetic “kind” from another. In doing this, Aristotle was describing as he knew it in Greece where poets usually competed for prizes in this or that class or “kind”. We know that his Politics was founded on the study, in detail, of the history and constitutions of 158 Greek states, and there is a good reason to believe that the Poetics was preceded by a similar examination of Greek plays; we have to remember the number, richness and variety of the plays available to Aristotle, compared with the minute proportion of Greek plays that have survived to us. He took over the kinds of literature as he found them; and by perpetuating them left a framework of reference for all European criticism ever since.
For it is largely through Poetics, though not because of it, that the main poetic “kinds” are still distinguished, even in their very names, through all the literatures of Europe, as Tragedy, Comedy, Epic and Lyric. In the main European languages these words are taken over from Greek merely transliterated and adapted to the appropriate grammatical shape. Whatever later forms, or kinds, may have been since developed, these have persisted, and (what is more) these names are still in constant use in the critical judgement even of kinds of literature that were unknown to Aristotle. Thus, a medieval verse Romance can hardly be discussed without reference to, and comparison with, Epic; even if the reason for mentioning Epic is to point the differences. A modern fictional narrative in prose, usually in this country called a “novel” (from the Italian), but in French called a roman (with a throwback to medieval Romance)—even a novel can hardly be discussed without using the terms Tragedy, Comedy, Epic and Lyrics—or the adjectives derived from them—as the quickest means of suggesting its character, or certain qualities in its various parts, or some aspect of its purposes or treatment. Even in a state of European literature in which the “kinds” are not strictly adhered to, the traditional kinds as distinguished by Aristotle still have vitality in helping an author to define his own purposes and methods, and in helping a critic to interpret them.
Also, quite apart from these words, which have been transliterated into the European languages, nearly all the leading critical ideas and distinctions used by Aristotle have been translated and still have a vital currency. Confining ourselves to dramatic criticism only, consider merely the terms plot, character, complication, denouement, episode, chorus, unity of action (to go no further), and ask how criticism could proceed without them. One of the main reasons why the Poetics should be read at the very beginning of a university course in literature is that it shows these essential current terms in their earliest formal context, related to a literature that one can read, at least in translation.
That word ‘related’ is very important. It is a means of accustoming oneself from the beginning to the fact that critical terms are relative, not absolute; that they need examination (not only in Aristotle but always, everywhere) in the light of the literature to which they refer and of the special purposes for which the critic himself is using them. This is just as true of modern criticism now—even of book-reviews in the weekly press—as it is of Aristotle himself, or, say, of Sidney or Dryden. Even though the words may remain in constant use in the same language, unchanged in form, yet their exact reference to the literature, and the nuance which they imply to the mind of the critic who uses them, may change, and frequently do change. The language of criticism is not a permanent, fixed, scientific vocabulary which, when once learnt, has merely to be correctly applied. It is constantly shifting; and it is the business of a trained mind, in writing or thinking of literature, to be alert to its shifts when they appear in the works of others, and to use the terms themselves carefully and studiously, in order that, so far as may be, the resulting criticism may make apparent the sense in which its own terminology is to be understood. That is the ideal; even if it is an ideal which scarcely any critic has ever attained.

Even a cursory glance through the passage shows that some of the assumptions made by the author are appalling. What appears to be the most appalling of them all?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

A philosopher once remarked that the difference between a bee and an architect is that the architect, unlike the bee, erects a structure in the mind before translating it into reality. Human civilization has taken considerable time to attain the stage of the architect. However, having got there, the contours of human evolution are determined by a continuous clash of ideas in all spheres of endeavor. The philosophical divide between materialism and idealism is often erroneously portrayed as matter versus mind. It is, in fact, a battle between the mind or consciousness as the highest form of matter and consciousness independent of the human body and, in that sense, cosmic in nature. While advances in modern science from astrophysics micro-genetic engineering reconfirm the former, the battle between sects of ideas, or ideology, continues to shape advances in every field. The answer to Descarte’s famous postulate ‘I think, therefore, I am’ is ‘I am, therefore, I think’.      
Ideology represents the structure of ideas that seeks to influence the course of human development. It not merely remains relevant, but also becomes pivotal in shaping the future. Presuming that the goal of humanity is to seek emancipation from all forms of bondage, the realization of that quest lies in Marxism.
Marxism is unique in that it can be transcended only when its agenda is realized. This is because its understanding of capitalism is by itself thorough enough for it to comprehend the historical possibilities that lie beyond it. Hence Marxism will be rendered superfluous only when capitalism, the object of its analysis, is itself superseded.
Put another way, the uniqueness of Marxism lies in the fact that all so-called theoretical advances, which supposedly render it obsolete, actually represent throwbacks to still earlier theories superseded by it. Alternatively, these are exaggerations of some particular aspects inherent in Marxism, but dressed in a new garb. These should properly be assimilated within Marxism. ‘Post-modernist’ or ‘post-Marxist’ theories which, at their best, emphasize a moral–ethical stance on social issues, represent pre-Marxist notions of social reformism, egalitarianism or progressive interventionism. On the other hand, certain reformist theories like Keynesianism, based on insights into the functioning of the capitalist economy, unknowingly recall insights actually contained in though not adequately developed within Marxism. It is not surprising that the Polish economist Michael Kalecki, by training an engineer whose only introduction to economics was Marx’s Capital, independently arrived at the so-called Keynesian Revolution.
Marx was not unique on account of subjective qualities that made him superior to other thinkers. What was remarkable was his approach to the analysis of capitalism and the unearthing of certain tendencies that he said were ‘immanent’ in capitalist social relations. The capitalist systems function in a manner that is not merely independent of the will and consciousness of its participants. Indeed, it makes the participants, whether capitalists or workers, victims of ‘alienation’ and mere personifications of the elements through which its inherent logic works itself out.

'The first claim of the Poetics on our attention is that it is the earliest surviving treatise to record and distinguish systematically one poetic “kind” from another,' says the author. If there is first claim, should there not be a second claim? Identify it.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The first claim of the Poetics on our attention, long before we come to the problematic passages, is that it is the earliest surviving treatise to record and distinguish systematically one poetic “kind” from another. In doing this, Aristotle was describing as he knew it in Greece where poets usually competed for prizes in this or that class or “kind”. We know that his Politics was founded on the study, in detail, of the history and constitutions of 158 Greek states, and there is a good reason to believe that the Poetics was preceded by a similar examination of Greek plays; we have to remember the number, richness and variety of the plays available to Aristotle, compared with the minute proportion of Greek plays that have survived to us. He took over the kinds of literature as he found them; and by perpetuating them left a framework of reference for all European criticism ever since.
For it is largely through Poetics, though not because of it, that the main poetic “kinds” are still distinguished, even in their very names, through all the literatures of Europe, as Tragedy, Comedy, Epic and Lyric. In the main European languages these words are taken over from Greek merely transliterated and adapted to the appropriate grammatical shape. Whatever later forms, or kinds, may have been since developed, these have persisted, and (what is more) these names are still in constant use in the critical judgement even of kinds of literature that were unknown to Aristotle. Thus, a medieval verse Romance can hardly be discussed without reference to, and comparison with, Epic; even if the reason for mentioning Epic is to point the differences. A modern fictional narrative in prose, usually in this country called a “novel” (from the Italian), but in French called a roman (with a throwback to medieval Romance)—even a novel can hardly be discussed without using the terms Tragedy, Comedy, Epic and Lyrics—or the adjectives derived from them—as the quickest means of suggesting its character, or certain qualities in its various parts, or some aspect of its purposes or treatment. Even in a state of European literature in which the “kinds” are not strictly adhered to, the traditional kinds as distinguished by Aristotle still have vitality in helping an author to define his own purposes and methods, and in helping a critic to interpret them.
Also, quite apart from these words, which have been transliterated into the European languages, nearly all the leading critical ideas and distinctions used by Aristotle have been translated and still have a vital currency. Confining ourselves to dramatic criticism only, consider merely the terms plot, character, complication, denouement, episode, chorus, unity of action (to go no further), and ask how criticism could proceed without them. One of the main reasons why the Poetics should be read at the very beginning of a university course in literature is that it shows these essential current terms in their earliest formal context, related to a literature that one can read, at least in translation.
That word ‘related’ is very important. It is a means of accustoming oneself from the beginning to the fact that critical terms are relative, not absolute; that they need examination (not only in Aristotle but always, everywhere) in the light of the literature to which they refer and of the special purposes for which the critic himself is using them. This is just as true of modern criticism now—even of book-reviews in the weekly press—as it is of Aristotle himself, or, say, of Sidney or Dryden. Even though the words may remain in constant use in the same language, unchanged in form, yet their exact reference to the literature, and the nuance which they imply to the mind of the critic who uses them, may change, and frequently do change. The language of criticism is not a permanent, fixed, scientific vocabulary which, when once learnt, has merely to be correctly applied. It is constantly shifting; and it is the business of a trained mind, in writing or thinking of literature, to be alert to its shifts when they appear in the works of others, and to use the terms themselves carefully and studiously, in order that, so far as may be, the resulting criticism may make apparent the sense in which its own terminology is to be understood. That is the ideal; even if it is an ideal which scarcely any critic has ever attained.

Why does the author say ‘We are a nation of the hypocrites’? How is it demonstrated, if at all?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

While referring to the Uniform Civil Code, the author uses the expression ‘the part of the constitution they seemingly venerate’. What does this suggest? (I) It suggests that all articles of the constitution are held with the same degree of esteem. (II) It suggests that the respect the politicians show to the constitution is not real or genuine. (III) It suggests that the Uniform Civil Code is the part of the same constitution which they publicly eulogize and venerate.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

The article leads to the conclusion that the author is

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

What is the central theme of this passage?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

Which of the following is one of the conclusions the author appears to have drawn?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.