NET practice questions, page 6 of 9, with answer review and explanations.
Question 26
In strongly territorial birds such as the indigo bunting, song is the main mechanism for securing g, defining, and defending an adequate breeding are. When population density is high, only the strongest males can retain a suitable area. The weakest males do not breed or are forced to nest on poor or marginal territories. During the breeding season, the male indigo bunting sings in his territory; each song lasts two or three seconds with a very short pause between songs, Melodic and rhythmic characteristics are produced by rapid changes in sound frequency and some regularity of silent periods between sounds. These modulated sounds form recognizable units, called figures, each of which is reproduced again and again with remarkable consistency. Despite the large frequency range of these sounds and the rapid frequency changes that the birds makes, the n umber of figures is very limited. Further, although we found some unique figures in different geographical populations, more than 90 percent of all Indigo bunting figures are extremely stable on the geographic basis. In our studies of isolated buntings we found that male indigo buntings are capable of singing many more types of figures than they usually do. Thus, it would seem that they copy their figures from other buntings they hear signing. Realizing that the ability to distinguish the songs of one species from those of another could be an important factor in the volition of the figures, we tested species recognition of a song. When we played a tape recording of a lazuli bunting or a painted bunting, male indigo bunting did not respond; Even when a dummy of male indigo bunting was placed near the tape recorder. Playing an indigo bunting song, however, usually brought an immediate response, making it clear that a male indigo bunting can readily distinguished songs of its own species from those of other species. The role of the songs figures in interspecies recognition was then examined. We created experimental songs composed of new figures by playing a normal song backwards, which changed the detailed forms of the figures without altering frequency ranges or gross temporal features. Since the male indigos gave almost a full response to the backward song, we concluded that a wide range of figures shapes can evoke positive responses. It seems likely, therefore, that a specific configuration is not essential for interspecies recognition, but it is clear that song figures must confirm to a particular frequency range, must be within narrow limits of duration, and must be spaced at particular intervals. There is evident that new figures may arise within a population through a slow process of change and selection. This variety is probably a valuable adaptation for survival: if every bird sang only a few types of figures, in dense woods or underbrush a female might have difficulty recognizing her mates song and a male might not be able to distinguished a neighbor from a stranger. Our studies led us to conclude that there must be a balance between song stability and conservatism, which lead to clear-cut species recognition, and song variation, which leads to individual recognition. According to the passage, the authors played a normal indigo bunting song backwards in order to determine which of the following?
What are the limits of the frequency range that will provide recognition by the indigo bunting.
What is the time duration necessary for recognition by the indigo bunting?
How specific must a figure shape be for it to be recognized by the indigo bunting?
How does variation in the pacing of song figures?
Is the indigo bunting responding to cues other than those in the song figures?
Question 27
Those examples of poetic justice that occur in medieval and Elizabethan literature, and that seem so satisfying, have encouraged a whole school of twentieth- century scholars to "find" further examples. In fact, these scholars have merely forced victimized character into a moral framework by which the injustices inflicted on them are, somehow or other, justified. Such scholars deny that the sufferers in a tragedy are innocent; they blame the victims themselves for their tragic fates. Any misdoing is enough to subject a character to critical whips. Thus, there are long essays about the misdemeanors of Websters Duchess of Malfi, who defined her brothers, and he behavior of Shakespeares Desdemona, who disobeyed her father. Yet it should be remembered that the Renaissance writer Matteo Bandello strongly protests the injustice of the severe penalties issued to women for acts of disobedience that men could, and did, commit with virtual impunity. And Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Webster often enlist their readers on the side of their tragic heroines by describing injustices so cruel that readers cannot but join in protest. By portraying Griselda, in the Clerks Tale, as a meek, gentle victim who does not criticize, much less rebel against the prosecutor, her husband Waltter, Chaucer incites readers to espouse Griseldas cause against Walters oppression. Thus, efforts to supply historical and theological rationalization for Walters persecutions tend to turn Chaucers fable upside down, to deny its most obvious effect on readers sympathies. Similarly, to assert that Websters Duchess deserved torture and death because she chose to marry the man she loved and to bear their children is, in effect to join forces with her tyrannical brothers, and so to confound the operation of poetic justice, of which readers should approve, with precisely those examples of social injustice that Webster does everything in his power to make readers condemn. Indeed. Webster has his heroin so heroically lead the resistance to tyranny that she may well in spire members of the audience to imaginatively join forces with her against the cruelty and hypocritical morality of her brothers. Thus Chaucer and Webster, in their different ways, attack injustice, argue on behalf of the victims, and prosecute the persecutors. Their readers serve them as a court of appeal that remains free to rule, as the evidence requires, and as common humanity requires, in favour of the innocent and injured parties. For, to paraphrase the noted eighteenth-century scholar, Samuel Johnson, despite all the refinements of subtlety and the dogmatism of learning, it is by the common sense and compassion of readers who are uncorrupted by the characters and situations in mereval and Elizabetahn literature, as in any other literature, can best be judged. According to the passage, some twentieth-century scholars have written at length about
Walter's persecution of his wife in Chaucer's the Clerk's Tale
the Duchess of Malfi's love for her husband
the tyrannical behaviour of the Duchess of Malfi's brothers
the actions taken by Shakespeare's Desdemona
the injustices suffered by Chaucer's Griselda
Question 28
Those examples of poetic justice that occur in medieval and Elizabethan literature, and that seem so satisfying, have encouraged a whole school of twentieth- century scholars to "find" further examples. In fact, these scholars have merely forced victimized character into a moral framework by which the injustices inflicted on them are, somehow or other, justified. Such scholars deny that the sufferers in a tragedy are innocent; they blame the victims themselves for their tragic fates. Any misdoing is enough to subject a character to critical whips. Thus, there are long essays about the misdemeanors of Websters Duchess of Malfi, who defined her brothers, and he behavior of Shakespeares Desdemona, who disobeyed her father. Yet it should be remembered that the Renaissance writer Matteo Bandello strongly protests the injustice of the severe penalties issued to women for acts of disobedience that men could, and did, commit with virtual impunity. And Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Webster often enlist their readers on the side of their tragic heroines by describing injustices so cruel that readers cannot but join in protest. By portraying Griselda, in the Clerks Tale, as a meek, gentle victim who does not criticize, much less rebel against the prosecutor, her husband Waltter, Chaucer incites readers to espouse Griseldas cause against Walters oppression. Thus, efforts to supply historical and theological rationalization for Walters persecutions tend to turn Chaucers fable upside down, to deny its most obvious effect on readers sympathies. Similarly, to assert that Websters Duchess deserved torture and death because she chose to marry the man she loved and to bear their children is, in effect to join forces with her tyrannical brothers, and so to confound the operation of poetic justice, of which readers should approve, with precisely those examples of social injustice that Webster does everything in his power to make readers condemn. Indeed. Webster has his heroin so heroically lead the resistance to tyranny that she may well in spire members of the audience to imaginatively join forces with her against the cruelty and hypocritical morality of her brothers. Thus Chaucer and Webster, in their different ways, attack injustice, argue on behalf of the victims, and prosecute the persecutors. Their readers serve them as a court of appeal that remains free to rule, as the evidence requires, and as common humanity requires, in favour of the innocent and injured parties. For, to paraphrase the noted eighteenth-century scholar, Samuel Johnson, despite all the refinements of subtlety and the dogmatism of learning, it is by the common sense and compassion of readers who are uncorrupted by the characters and situations in mereval and Elizabetahn literature, as in any other literature, can best be judged. The primary purpose of the passage is to
describe the role of the tragic heroine in medieval and Elizabethan literature
resolve a controversy over the meaning of "poetic justice" as it is discussed in certain medieval and Elizabethan literary treatises
present evidence to support the view that characters in medieval and Elizabethan tragedies are to blame for their fates
assert that it is impossible for twentieth-century readers to fully comprehend the characters and situations in medieval and Elizabethan literary works
argue that some twentieth-century scholars have misapplied the concept of "poetic justice" in analyzing certain medieval and Elizabethan literary works.
Question 29
Those examples of poetic justice that occur in medieval and Elizabethan literature, and that seem so satisfying, have encouraged a whole school of twentieth- century scholars to "find" further examples. In fact, these scholars have merely forced victimized character into a moral framework by which the injustices inflicted on them are, somehow or other, justified. Such scholars deny that the sufferers in a tragedy are innocent; they blame the victims themselves for their tragic fates. Any misdoing is enough to subject a character to critical whips. Thus, there are long essays about the misdemeanors of Websters Duchess of Malfi, who defined her brothers, and he behavior of Shakespeares Desdemona, who disobeyed her father. Yet it should be remembered that the Renaissance writer Matteo Bandello strongly protests the injustice of the severe penalties issued to women for acts of disobedience that men could, and did, commit with virtual impunity. And Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Webster often enlist their readers on the side of their tragic heroines by describing injustices so cruel that readers cannot but join in protest. By portraying Griselda, in the Clerks Tale, as a meek, gentle victim who does not criticize, much less rebel against the prosecutor, her husband Waltter, Chaucer incites readers to espouse Griseldas cause against Walters oppression. Thus, efforts to supply historical and theological rationalization for Walters persecutions tend to turn Chaucers fable upside down, to deny its most obvious effect on readers sympathies. Similarly, to assert that Websters Duchess deserved torture and death because she chose to marry the man she loved and to bear their children is, in effect to join forces with her tyrannical brothers, and so to confound the operation of poetic justice, of which readers should approve, with precisely those examples of social injustice that Webster does everything in his power to make readers condemn. Indeed. Webster has his heroin so heroically lead the resistance to tyranny that she may well in spire members of the audience to imaginatively join forces with her against the cruelty and hypocritical morality of her brothers. Thus Chaucer and Webster, in their different ways, attack injustice, argue on behalf of the victims, and prosecute the persecutors. Their readers serve them as a court of appeal that remains free to rule, as the evidence requires, and as common humanity requires, in favour of the innocent and injured parties. For, to paraphrase the noted eighteenth-century scholar, Samuel Johnson, despite all the refinements of subtlety and the dogmatism of learning, it is by the common sense and compassion of readers who are uncorrupted by the characters and situations in mereval and Elizabetahn literature, as in any other literature, can best be judged. It can be inferred from the passage that the author consider Chaucer's Grisselda to be
an innocent victim
a sympathetic judge
an imprudent person
a strong individual
a rebellious daughters
Question 30
Those examples of poetic justice that occur in medieval and Elizabethan literature, and that seem so satisfying, have encouraged a whole school of twentieth- century scholars to "find" further examples. In fact, these scholars have merely forced victimized character into a moral framework by which the injustices inflicted on them are, somehow or other, justified. Such scholars deny that the sufferers in a tragedy are innocent; they blame the victims themselves for their tragic fates. Any misdoing is enough to subject a character to critical whips. Thus, there are long essays about the misdemeanors of Websters Duchess of Malfi, who defined her brothers, and he behavior of Shakespeares Desdemona, who disobeyed her father. Yet it should be remembered that the Renaissance writer Matteo Bandello strongly protests the injustice of the severe penalties issued to women for acts of disobedience that men could, and did, commit with virtual impunity. And Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Webster often enlist their readers on the side of their tragic heroines by describing injustices so cruel that readers cannot but join in protest. By portraying Griselda, in the Clerks Tale, as a meek, gentle victim who does not criticize, much less rebel against the prosecutor, her husband Waltter, Chaucer incites readers to espouse Griseldas cause against Walters oppression. Thus, efforts to supply historical and theological rationalization for Walters persecutions tend to turn Chaucers fable upside down, to deny its most obvious effect on readers sympathies. Similarly, to assert that Websters Duchess deserved torture and death because she chose to marry the man she loved and to bear their children is, in effect to join forces with her tyrannical brothers, and so to confound the operation of poetic justice, of which readers should approve, with precisely those examples of social injustice that Webster does everything in his power to make readers condemn. Indeed. Webster has his heroin so heroically lead the resistance to tyranny that she may well in spire members of the audience to imaginatively join forces with her against the cruelty and hypocritical morality of her brothers. Thus Chaucer and Webster, in their different ways, attack injustice, argue on behalf of the victims, and prosecute the persecutors. Their readers serve them as a court of appeal that remains free to rule, as the evidence requires, and as common humanity requires, in favour of the innocent and injured parties. For, to paraphrase the noted eighteenth-century scholar, Samuel Johnson, despite all the refinements of subtlety and the dogmatism of learning, it is by the common sense and compassion of readers who are uncorrupted by the characters and situations in mereval and Dlizabetahn literature, as in any other literature, can best be judged. The author's tone in her discussion of the conclusion's reached by the "school of twentieth-century scholars" (line 4) is best described as