There are two theories that have been used to explain ancient and mode

Yes, the passage is a little hard to grasp, but half the questions are pretty straight-forward. GMAT tends to give passages that tire you as you read the passage, in an attempt to trick you into making mistakes when you get to the questions : Typical GMAT style. Moral of the story: Keep your calm and focus on the main idea of each paragraph. It is okay to not understand a few words or sentences. You can still get the questions right through POE.

Hey folks,

I had the pleasure of going through this passage recently. Here are some notes from my analysis - based on my understanding. The questions of this passage are of course fairly easy. It is the passage that can be tricky if we rush through. Hope these rough notes are useful.

1. Two theories of tragedy
a. On one side - Both do not properly explain the complexity of the tragic process/tragic hero
b. On the other side (But) - each is able to explain some important elements of tragedy
c. Their conclusions are contradictory
i. Because of this, they represent 2 extreme views
2. Theory 1
a. All tragedy is an exhibition of the workings of external fate (external fate is what creates tragedy)
b. Support/Explanation for above theory (of course)
i. MOST (majority) of tragedies do indicate that something beyond our power (impersonal power, limitation of human effort) is at work (external fate)
c. BUT, this theory is an oversimplification
i. Mainly (primarily) because it confuses the tragic condition with the tragic process
1) Explanation for the above:
a) Fate becomes external only after the TP has been set in motion. Theory 1 does not take this aspect into account
b) Example - Ancient Greek tragedy. Fate is initially internal, becomes external only after it has been violated
i) Parallel example provided (just as): Justice is internal for a honest person, becomes external upon violation (as seen in the case of a criminal - someone who has violated fate)
ii. Second Reason (secondarily) why Theory 1 is an oversimplification - it does not differentiate between tragedy and irony
1) Irony
a) Does not need an exceptional central figure (HERO figure)
i) In fact, the less prominent (ignoble: humble, not prominent, exceptional in any way types - non Hero), the better for irony
ii) Why: because the irony becomes sharper, in other words, a prominent hero distracts from the core message of irony. Having a non prominent character keeps irony in sharp focus
2) Tragedy on the other hand normally has exceptional, extraordinary HERO type character.
a) Destiny almost within grasp, just failed, adds to the tragedy feel (the fact that He/she was so strong and so close, but fell short)
b) Heroism creates the exhilaration feel of tragedy therefore. Unlike in Irony where we don’t want a prominent hero.
3. Theory 2
a. What triggers the tragic process is mainly (primarily) a violation of moral law
i. The Tragic Hero must have a sinful flaw
ii. Example (again it is true - building the above point) - hubris, pride, passionate mind
iii. Tragic Hero - great person with a major flaw
iv. Him/her acting on this sinful flaw triggers the tragic process
b. BUT such a flaw (ex - hubris) is only the agent that triggers tragedy, it does not explain any other aspects
i. Just as, example - in comedy, the cause of the happy ending is only an act of humility performed by a noble character, disguised as a mean character
ii. The trait of humility can only explain the happy ending. Cannot explain the whole of the comedy. Similarly, the sin (say hubris) can only explain what causes/triggers the tragic process, not other aspects of it.
iii. Only implies that this explains only some things, not everything!


What has the author done in this passage?

1. Introduced 2 theories of tragedy
2. Stated that while both cover some aspects, both also have issues
3. Discussed theory 1, criticized it
4. Discussed theory 2, criticized it

Summary
Introduced two theories of tragedy and criticized both

I have highlighted specific Keywords in Bold - which can help in understanding the passage better.


Cheers!
Harsha

Video solution from Quant Reasoning:
Subscribe for more: https://www.youtube.com/QuantReasoning? ... irmation=1

Hi experts
In Q1. the primary purpose question How can we conclude that author is comparing the 2 theories?
IMO author discussed 2 theories and criticized them, but he didn't compare them anywhere.

Question 1

The two theories are compared in the second sentence of the passage: "Neither [theory] quite explains the complexity of the tragic process or the tragic hero, but each explains important elements of tragedy, and, because their conclusions are contradictory, they represent extreme views."

The author thinks that they are comparable in that NEITHER explains the complexity of tragedy, and BOTH represent extreme views.

(A) is the correct answer to question 1.

I hope that helps!

In my honest opinion, this is a very hard passage.
In fact, it comes from GMAT Advanced.

Got all 7 Questions correct, however, it took me TWENTY minutes to solve.
I usually go through POE for each question, but in some cases for this passage it is very difficult to cross off all the 4 Incorrect choices.

By applying logic and reading very carefully through the lines of the passage, the whole thing becomes a lot easier.

It is very difficult to understand every detail because some paragraphs present very abstract concepts, which are quite difficult to grasp.

Focusing on the big picture and on the point of the author is always the key.

Me too!

What does external fate (tragic condition) and internal condition (tragic process) mean in real life?
Can any one take some examples?
Let's say a hero died helping someone. Does it mean because the hero "helped"(internal) someone, he faced a situation(external) to die? Is the author saying that he died because he had good moral sense and it's not an external fate?

Also, is the author saying that irony is not tragedy and it should be distinguished from it?

Personally this is one undecipherable passage I've ever encountered ... maybe because I wouldn't care what the definitions of tragedy are, nor want to criticize one of those.

Sorry for the late reply!

This is a pretty tough passage. Rather than trying to understand all this junk in the context of the real world, just try your best to understand it in the context of the passage itself.

For starters, the author thinks that the first theory is flawed because it fails to distinguish between "tragic process" and "tragic condition. What exactly does that mean? Eh, maybe that's not crystal-clear, but at least we have a fuzzy picture of what the author is trying to say.

In line 14, we get what's supposed to be an explanation of that distinction (starting with "the theory does not acknowledge that..."), but unfortunately that explanation is pretty tough to follow. You should absolutely do your best to read that part carefully and understand it. BUT, if after reading it once or twice you're still confused, go with what you've got and move on.

For example, you might say to yourself, "alright, I know there are two theories, and according to the author each one is useful but imperfect. A flaw with the first theory is that it fails to distinguish between tragic process and tragic condition. The author talks about fate in explaining that distinction -- I don't really get it, but I know where to look if I get to a question about it..."

If you're lucky, they won't even ask about that part of the passage that you had trouble understanding! And if they do, maybe your limited understand will be enough to help you eliminate 2 or 3 choices using POE. Also, there might be something later in the passage that helps you better understand the part you struggled with.

In any case, it's NOT worth driving yourself nuts trying to understand every little detail of a passage. Instead, try your best to understand the purpose and structure, and then move on, regardless of how comfortable you feel. Remember, it's an adaptive test, and you're supposed to get questions wrong. So let go of the ones that stump you to make sure you have time for the more manageable ones.

For more on how to approach RC in general, check out this article or this RC video series (filmed LIVE!) or this longer RC video series.

For more on letting go when you're stumped, check out this video.

I hope that helps!