The question provided is about identifying the most significant aspect of Harold Pinter's plays, based on a given comprehension passage.
The passage describes various themes and characteristics of Pinter's work. It mentions:
The comprehension explicitly states that although his plays address themes like the slipperiness of memory and character, they are "almost always about the struggle for power." This makes it clear that the central theme and the most significant aspect of Pinter's plays is the "struggle for power."
Let's evaluate the options:
Therefore, the correct answer is "Struggle for power."
To determine the synonym for the word mordantly, we need to understand its meaning and context in which it's used in the passage. The word mordantly is often used to describe a style or manner that is sharply or bitingly critical in a humorous way, often associated with sarcasm or irony.
In the passage, mordantly is used in the context of describing Harold Pinter's writing style, which is indicated to contain "dark, glittering and often mordantly funny poetry." This suggests a use of humor that is harsh or biting.
Now, let's examine the given options for a synonym that best matches this sense of the word mordantly:
Therefore, the best synonym for mordantly in this context is Harshly.
The question asks why Harold Pinter was considered the most imitated dramatist of his time. Let's explore the context provided in the comprehension passage to find the correct answer.
We conclude that the correct option is "He found the ominous in the everyday and the noise within silence", as it directly reflects the characteristics that made Pinter's writing distinctive and imitable according to the passage.
The question asks us to identify the aspect of Harold Pinter's writing that was most burlesqued. To answer this, we should analyze the context provided in the comprehension passage and match it with the given options.
The passage describes Harold Pinter as a British playwright known for his playwriting style, which includes 'terse, hypnotic dialogue filled with gaping pauses.' The passage further elaborates, stating that Pinter's work is characterized by the stage direction 'pause,' which is intended as an instructive note to actors and is a significant aspect of his theatrical style.
Additionally, the passage cites Pinter's consistent use of pauses 'with rhythmic assurance and to such fine-tuned manipulative effect,' indicating that this particular aspect of his writing strategy has been notably parodied or burlesqued. This supports the given correct answer.
Let's evaluate each option in detail:
Given this analysis, the correct answer is the aspect specified in option 3: "The consistent usage of 'pause' with rhythmic assurance", as the passage highlights how this feature became a hallmark frequently parodied in Pinter's style.
The question asks about the tone of Harold Pinter's plays based on the provided comprehension. To identify the correct tone, we need to analyze the key aspects of Pinter's writing as described in the passage.
Given these points, the tone can be concluded as candid. This choice matches with:
Let's rule out the other options:
Therefore, the tone of Harold Pinter's plays is best described as candid.
The question asks us to identify the word that acts as a one-word substitute for the phrase "a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity." This is a definition of the term 'Metaphor'.
The given question pertains to Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension and focuses on identifying what Harold Pinter captured in his most celebrated works.
To address this question, we need to analyze the provided comprehension passage. Here is the step-by-step analysis:
Given this comprehensive breakdown, we can conclude that the answer is:
The correct option is: "The anxiety and ambiguity of life in the latter half of the 20th century." This is corroborated directly by the phrases used in the comprehension.
Therefore, the correct answer captures the essence of what Harold Pinter's most celebrated works were about, as stated in the passage.
The question asks how Harold Pinter described his play, The Birthday Party. Let's analyze each option and use the comprehension provided to find the correct answer:
From the analysis above, the correct answer is:
It is a very serious piece of work
When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.
As the post–World War II generation of liberal democratic leaders forged new, highly successful domestic and international institutions and policies throughout the West, the weaknesses of liberal democracy that dominated the two decades after World War II faded from view. But they did not go away.
First, because liberal democracy restrains majorities, it slows the achievement of goals that majorities support. This generates frustration with institutional restraints, and an unacknowledged envy of authoritarian systems that can act quickly and decisively. China can build huge cities in the time it takes the United States to review the environmental impact of small highway projects. Liberal democracy requires more patience than many possess. Second, liberal democracy requires tolerance for minority views and ways of life to which many citizens are deeply opposed. It is natural to feel that if we consider certain views or ways of life to be odious, we should use public power to suppress them. In many such cases, liberal democracy restrains this impulse, a psychological burden that some will find unbearable.
This leads directly to the third inherent problem of liberal democracy—the distinction it requires us to make between civic identity and personal or group identity. For example, although we may consider certain religious views false and even dangerous, we must, for civic purposes, accept those who hold these views as our equals. They may freely express these views; they may organize to promote them; they may vote, and their votes are given the same weight as ours. The same goes for race, ethnicity, gender, and all the particularities that distinguish us from one another.
This requirement often goes against the grain of natural sentiments. We want the public sphere to reflect what we find most valuable about our private commitments. Liberal democracy prevents us from fully translating our personal identities into our public lives as citizens. This too is not always easy to bear. The quest for wholeness—for a political community, or even a world, that reflects our most important commitments—is a deep yearning to which liberal leaders can always appeal.
Nor is the fourth inherent difficulty of liberal democracy—the necessity of compromise—easy to bear. If what I want is good and true, why should I agree that public decisions must incorporate competing views? James Madison gives us the answer: in circumstances of liberty, diversity of views is inevitable, and unless those who agree with us form a majority so large as to be irresistible, the alternative to compromise is inaction, which is often more damaging, or oppression, which always is.
Beware of the old newspapers
stacked
on that little three legged stool over there.
Don’t disturb them.
I know it for a fact
that snakes have spawned in between these sheets.
Don’t even look in that direction.
It’s not because of breeze
that their corners are fluttering.
It’s alive, that nest of newspapers.
new born snakes, coiling and uncurling,
are turning their heads to look at you.
That white corner has spread its hood.
A forked tongue
shoots out of its mouth.
Keep your eyes closed.
Get rid of the whole goddamn pile if you
want to
in the morning.
If the price of a commodity increases by 25%, by what percentage should the consumption be reduced to keep the expenditure the same?
A shopkeeper marks his goods 40% above cost price and offers a 10% discount. What is his percentage profit?