Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
16 Sep 2014, 02:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
Two new commentaries on the life and work of early twentieth century short story writer Katherine Mansfield may be aimed at completely different audiences, but each uses well-known facts in new ways. The first, a popular biography by Virginia Smith, nods at Mansfield’s origins at the edge of the British empire – she was born in 1888 in Wellington, New Zealand – but is ultimately much more interested in the ways Mansfield’s simultaneously defiant and needy personality made her one of the most important, though often overlooked, groundbreakers of literary modernism.Mansfield’s relationships with fellow writers D.H. Lawrence and Virginia Woolf, as well as with her critic-husband John Middleton Murray, are examined for evidence of Mansfield’s influence on them, rather than vice versa. Ms. Smith compellingly presents Mansfield as a social chameleon skilled at imitation and adaptation; this innate flexibility, the book argues, is the very trait that made only Mansfield capable of infusing the English literary scene with the influence of Russian writer Anton Chekhov. Though in the end Ms. Smith offers few new biographical details, the truly impressive aspect of this biography is her ability to shift easily between worn fact and compelling narrative.
Whereas the few shortcomings of Ms. Smith’s book may be attributed to lack of publishing experience, a second commentary from long-time professor Jim Jeffries can make no such excuse. Mr. Jeffries’ contribution is an often tedious biographical essay that introduces a new critical edition of Mansfield’s short stories. Jeffries’ work plods point-by-point along Mansfield’s biography, attempting to attribute the inspiration for each sparkling, artfully constructed story to a traumatic event in her life. The result is not so much a portrait of Mansfield’s work as it is an ornate yet overly-simplified timeline. This offense is only compounded by Mr. Jeffries’ shallow interpretations of Mansfield’s most subtle and complex symbolism, and his continuing references to various critics and philosophers make the essay no more interesting than name-dropping at a cocktail party.
Whereas the few shortcomings of Ms. Smith’s book may be attributed to lack of publishing experience, a second commentary from long-time professor Jim Jeffries can make no such excuse. Mr. Jeffries’ contribution is an often tedious biographical essay that introduces a new critical edition of Mansfield’s short stories. Jeffries’ work plods point-by-point along Mansfield’s biography, attempting to attribute the inspiration for each sparkling, artfully constructed story to a traumatic event in her life. The result is not so much a portrait of Mansfield’s work as it is an ornate yet overly-simplified timeline. This offense is only compounded by Mr. Jeffries’ shallow interpretations of Mansfield’s most subtle and complex symbolism, and his continuing references to various critics and philosophers make the essay no more interesting than name-dropping at a cocktail party.
1. The passage above is primarily concerned with
(a) establishing an unknown writer as an important literary figure.
(b) comparing and contrasting two recent biographical works.
(c) arguing for a new interpretation of the life of a literary figure.
(d) disputing the credentials of a well-known literary critic.
(e) analyzing different uses of commonly-known biographical facts.
2. Which of the following forms the best conclusion to the second paragraph?
(a) However, Mr. Jeffries does manage to say considerably more about Mansfield’s relationship with Virginia Woolf than does Ms. Smith.
(b) In light of these facts, one can predict that Mr. Jeffries’ book will be far less popular than Ms. Smith’s.
(c) In short, though Mr. Jeffries had at his disposal the same biographical information as Ms. Smith, he manages to do considerably worse with it.
(d) Because of the many shortcomings of Mr. Jeffries’ book, it is likely that Ms. Smith will soon eclipse him as the predominant scholarly authority on Mansfield.
(e) Notwithstanding these many shortcomings, Mr. Jeffries has his long-standing critical reputation to recommend him to readers.
3. With which of the following statements about Mansfield’s relationships with other modernist writers would the author of the passage most likely agree?
(a) Fellow writers such as Lawrence and Woolf learned imitation and adaptation from Mansfield.
(b) The fact that Mansfield was both defiant and needy made her relationships with other writers difficult.
(c) Mansfield preferred her friendship with Chekhov to relationships with English writers Lawrence and Woolf.
(d) Mansfield’s personality was flexible enough to accommodate relationships with critics as well as with fellow writers.
(e) Mansfield’s influence on fellow writers, though often overlooked, is as significant as their influence on her.
4. The author most likely uses the word “plods” in this line in order to
(a) emphasize the tedious nature of the essay.
(b) criticize the essay’s excessive use of detail.
(c) highlight the essay’s method of connecting biography to literary output.
(d) mark a distinction between narrative and factual elements in the essay.
(e) draw attention to a preferred approach to biography.
(a) establishing an unknown writer as an important literary figure.
(b) comparing and contrasting two recent biographical works.
(c) arguing for a new interpretation of the life of a literary figure.
(d) disputing the credentials of a well-known literary critic.
(e) analyzing different uses of commonly-known biographical facts.
2. Which of the following forms the best conclusion to the second paragraph?
(a) However, Mr. Jeffries does manage to say considerably more about Mansfield’s relationship with Virginia Woolf than does Ms. Smith.
(b) In light of these facts, one can predict that Mr. Jeffries’ book will be far less popular than Ms. Smith’s.
(c) In short, though Mr. Jeffries had at his disposal the same biographical information as Ms. Smith, he manages to do considerably worse with it.
(d) Because of the many shortcomings of Mr. Jeffries’ book, it is likely that Ms. Smith will soon eclipse him as the predominant scholarly authority on Mansfield.
(e) Notwithstanding these many shortcomings, Mr. Jeffries has his long-standing critical reputation to recommend him to readers.
3. With which of the following statements about Mansfield’s relationships with other modernist writers would the author of the passage most likely agree?
(a) Fellow writers such as Lawrence and Woolf learned imitation and adaptation from Mansfield.
(b) The fact that Mansfield was both defiant and needy made her relationships with other writers difficult.
(c) Mansfield preferred her friendship with Chekhov to relationships with English writers Lawrence and Woolf.
(d) Mansfield’s personality was flexible enough to accommodate relationships with critics as well as with fellow writers.
(e) Mansfield’s influence on fellow writers, though often overlooked, is as significant as their influence on her.
4. The author most likely uses the word “plods” in this line in order to
(a) emphasize the tedious nature of the essay.
(b) criticize the essay’s excessive use of detail.
(c) highlight the essay’s method of connecting biography to literary output.
(d) mark a distinction between narrative and factual elements in the essay.
(e) draw attention to a preferred approach to biography.
16 Sep 2014, 02:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
Show SpoilerQuestion V04-31 explanation
The correct answer choice depends on an understanding of the passage as a whole and must take all parts of the passage into account. The first sentence previews the rest of the passage by stating that the topic is two new commentaries about Katherine Mansfield. Though the author clearly prefers one commentary over the other, the general purpose of the passage is to compare and contrast the two works.
- It is not claimed in the passage that Mansfield is an unknown writer.
- Virginia Smith’s popular biography is compared and contrasted with Jim Jeffries’ introduction to a critical edition of short stories.
- Though the authors of both works being reviewed reinterpret Mansfield’s life, this is not a goal of the author of the passage.
- A well-known literary critic is mentioned only in paragraph 2, and his credentials are not disputed.
- This is one aspect of the author’s review of each biographical work, but it is not the main goal of the passage.
Show SpoilerQuestion V04-32 explanation
Because this question does not deal directly with information from the passage, it can best by answered by making an inference. A review of the second paragraph reminds us that the author of the passage dislikes Jeffries’ work on Mansfield because it is both over-simplified and arrogant. An apt conclusion to the second paragraph will maintain the critical tone of the paragraph and summarize the author’s reasons for dislike.
- The positive tone of this option does not fit with the critical tone of the rest of the paragraph.
- Popularity of either book is outside the scope of both the second paragraph and the passage.
- This option maintains the critical tone of the second paragraph, summarizes the criticism, and refers back to the first sentence of the passage, in which the thread common to both works – biographical information – was discussed.
- The second paragraph does not speculate on the relative authority of Smith and Jeffries.
- A compliment to Jeffries’ critical reputation does not fit with the critical tone of the second paragraph.
Show SpoilerQuestion V04-33 explanation
The phrase most likely agree in the question stem indicates that the correct answer depends on making an inference. First, review these lines, where Mansfield’s relationships with fellow writers are discussed. In this sentence, the author italicizes the word them to emphasize that relationships of influence among modernist writers are assumed to run the other way, with writers such as Woolf and Lawrence impacting Mansfield. The phrase rather than vice versa at the end of the sentence further emphasizes this assumption and reveals the writer’s opinion that Mansfield’s influence on fellow writers was at least as important as their influence on her.
- Imitation and adaptation are mentioned as traits possessed by Mansfield, not as traits learned by fellow writers.
- This is a distortion of a detail from this line.
- The passage does not state that Mansfield had a friendship with Chekhov.
- This is a distortion of details from this line, which mentions that Mansfield’s husband was a literary critic, and this line, which applauds the flexibility of her imagination.
- This option is a paraphrase of these lines, which make it clear that the author considers Mansfield’s influence on fellow writers to be of often underestimated importance.
Show SpoilerQuestion V04-34 explanation
The question requires a consideration of the author’s word choice. The previous two sentences begin a general criticism of Jeffries’ essay that includes the accusation that it is tedious. The next sentence continues this idea, providing more details and further criticizing Jeffries’ work for heavy use of a timeline approach.
- The word plods underscores the claim in the previous sentence that Jeffries’ essay is tedious, and prepares the rest of the sentence to argue more specifically that the timeline approach is particularly offensive to the author.
- The second paragraph does criticize the essay’s excessive use of detail, but the word plods in this sentence has a more specific function.
- Plods does not refer directly to the essay’s method of connecting biography and output.
- The word plods does not function this way in the sentence.
- The author does prefer a certain approach to biography, but that approach is described in the first paragraph, not the second.
