View the step-by-step solution to:

I need help on these 15 multiple choice questions based on the passage below: 1.In the first paragraph, the author establishes the claim that "that

I need help on these 15 multiple choice questions based on the passage below:

1.In the first paragraph, the author establishes the claim that "that neither sex, without some fertilization by the complementary characters of the other, is capable of the highest reaches of human endeavour."(lines 8-9). In this paragraph the author supports this claim by"

a. quoting other authorities b. giving facts followed by wide-ranging analysis c. emotional appeals d. giving examples of women who's "mannish" traits contributed to their success and citing the limited number of male roles that demand a strictly masculine imagination e. figurative language

2.The passage describes "women of genius" as "distinctly mannish" saying that they "shave as well as shine" (lines 7-8). The language of this passage is an example of:

a. alliteration and overstatement b. metaphor and understatement c. personification and metaphor d. simile and overstatement e. onomatopoeia and metaphor

3.The concluding paragraph (lines 15-16) states "The wholly manly man lacks the wit necessary to give objective form to his soaring and secret dreams, and the wholly womanly woman is apt to be too cynical a creature to dream at all." This sentence derives its unity chiefly from the use of :

a.personification b. irony c. understatement d. facts .e antithesis

4.The second paragraph characterizes the "chief mental equipment of the average male" as which of the following: a mass of small intellectual tricks, a complex of petty knowledge's, tasks women are equally capable of completing

a. I only b. II only c. I and II only d. II and III only e. I, II, & III

5.Which of the following best describes the rhetorical technique used in the phrase " that collection of cerebral rubber stamps" in the first sentence of the second paragraph (lines 17-19):

a. Ad hominem, or personal attack b. hyperbole(exaggeration) c. elevated of high diction d. red herring, or diversionary comment e. jargon

6.In the passage, the author uses derogatory language to characterize all of the following except:

a. stockbrokers b. lawyers c. politicians d. bankers e.journalists

7.The rhetorical purpose of the second paragraph can best be described as:

a. expository b. argumentative c. speculative d. deductive e. narrative

8.Which of the following best describes the effect of the sentence in the lines 24-26 in which the chimpanzee's "learning how to catch a penny or scratch a match" is compared to "empty talents"?

a. It provides evidence that the author is is directing remarks to an audience of animal lovers b. It reinforces the assertion that the average male has only "petty accomplishments" c. It alerts readers to a change in tone d. It intimidates the reader with a direct command e. It offers a contrasting example to prove the argument

9.In paragraph 2 (line 35) the author mentions Charles France Adams for what reason?

a. To illustrate the silliness and absurdity of those who disagree with the author's thesis b. To add colorful "personal interest" details without substantially supporting any particular claim c. To add the agreement of a famous authority, thereby increasing the creditably of the author's views d. To undercut the description of "masculine men" at being "blank cartridges" e. To contrast childishness of "masculine men" with the sagacity of the president's grandson

10.The first sentence of the third paragraph (lines 38-40) refers to "men of that kidney". What is the antecedent of this expression?

a. European businessmen b. Men who have the ability to calculate large arithmetic sums in their heads c. usurers d. successful men who are intellectually "blank cartridges"

e. men who are grandsons of presidents

11.In the third paragraph, the qualities of "first rate" men are described in terms of:

a. things they do badly, such as remembering trivial facts, tying cravats, and playing games and sports b. doing mathematical tricks and games and sports they do well, such as grouse shooting, golf and billiards c. their impressive command of social skills and dressing such as the ability to tie cravats and play cards d. their knowledge of literature, music and art e. their political skills and bookkeeping

12.What is the antecedent for the pronoun they in the final sentence (lines 49 - 50) "They know nothing of party politics. In brief, they are inert and impotent in the very fields of endeavour that see the average men's highest performances,.." ?

a. Havelock Ellis b. Cravats c.games such as golf, billiards,and cards d. Aristotle and Beethoven e. first rate men

13.The tone of the final paragraph is best described as:

a. amazement b. ironic c. sarcastic d. simplistic e. sexist

14.The images of the last two paragraphs (lines 17-52) combine to form an impression of:

a.vibrancy and success b. European snobbery towards American society c. the dull and stultifying effect of the usual "masculine" pursuits d. struggle and desperation e. danger and entrapment

15.The point of the statement that the vote should not be "talisman" (lines 1-8) is to"

a. emphasize that American society is not perfect b. suggest that the vote fraud is possible c. assert that the vote is not a magical solution to the many imperfections in America d. refute the charges of those who believe the granting the vote will further corrupt the country e. reveal the sexism imbedded in the American political system


It would be an easy matter, indeed, to demonstrate that superior talent in man is practically always accompanied by this feminine flavour—that complete masculinity and stupidity are often indistinguishable. Lest I be misunderstood I hasten to add that I do not mean to say that masculinity contributes nothing to the complex of chemico-physiological reactions which produces what we call talent; all I mean to say is that this complex is impossible without the feminine contribution that it is a product of the interplay of the two elements. In women of genius we see the opposite picture. They are commonly distinctly mannish, and shave as well as shine. Think of George Sand, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth of England, Rosa Bonheur, Teresa Carreo or Cosima Wagner. The truth is that neither sex, without some fertilization by the complementary characters of the other, is capable of the highest reaches of human endeavour. Man, without a saving touch of woman in him, is too doltish, too naive and romantic, too easily deluded and lulled to sleep by his imagination to be anything above a cavalryman, a theologian or a bank director. And woman, without some trace of that divine innocence which is masculine, is too harshly the realist for those vast projections of the fancy which lie at the heart of what we call genius. Here, as elsewhere in the universe, the best effects are obtained by a mingling of elements. The wholly manly man lacks the wit necessary to give objective form to his soaring and secret dreams, and the wholly womanly woman is apt to be too cynical a creature to dream at all.


What men, in their egoism, constantly mistake for a deficiency of intelligence in woman is merely an incapacity for mastering that mass of small intellectual tricks, that complex of petty knowledges, that collection of cerebral rubber stamps, which constitutes the chief mental equipment of the average male. A man thinks that he is more intelligent than his wife because he can add up a column of figures more accurately, and because he understands the imbecile jargon of the stock market, and because he is able to distinguish between the ideas of rival politicians, and because he is privy to the minutiae of some sordid and degrading business or profession, say soap-selling or the law. But these empty talents, of course, are not really signs of a profound intelligence; they are, in fact, merely superficial accomplishments, and their acquirement puts little more strain on the mental powers than a chimpanzee suffers in learning how to catch a penny or scratch a match. The whole bag of tricks of the average business man, or even of the average professional man, is inordinately childish. It takes no more actual sagacity to carry on the everyday hawking and haggling of the world, or to ladle out its normal doses of bad medicine and worse law, than it takes to operate a taxicab or fry a pan of fish. No observant person, indeed, can come into close contact with the general run of business and professional men—I confine myself to those who seem to get on in the world, and exclude the admitted failures—without marvelling at their intellectual lethargy, their incurable ingenuousness, their appalling lack of ordinary sense. The late Charles Francis Adams, a grandson of one American President and a great-grandson of another, after a long lifetime in intimate association with some of the chief business "geniuses" of that paradise of traders and usurers, the United States, reported in his old age that he had never heard a single one of them say anything worth hearing. These were vigorous and masculine men, and in a man's world they were successful men, but intellectually they were all blank cartridges.


There is, indeed, fair ground for arguing that, if men of that kidney were genuinely intelligent, they would never succeed at their gross and driveling concerns—that their very capacity to master and retain such balderdash as constitutes their stock in trade is proof of their inferior mentality. The notion is certainly supported by the familiar incompetency of first rate men for what are called practical concerns. One could not think of Aristotle or Beethoven multiplying 3,472,701 by 99,999 without making a mistake, nor could one think of him remembering the range of this or that railway share for two years, or the number of ten-penny nails in a hundred weight, or the freight on lard from Galveston to Rotterdam. And by the same token one could not imagine him expert at billiards, or at grouse-shooting, or at golf, or at any other of the idiotic games at which what are called successful men commonly divert themselves. In his great study of British genius, Havelock Ellis found that an incapacity for such petty expertness was visible in almost all first rate men. They are bad at tying cravats. They do not understand the fashionable card games. They are puzzled by book-keeping. They know nothing of party politics. In brief, they are inert and impotent in the very fields of endeavour that see the average men's highest performances, and are easily surpassed by men who, in actual intelligence, are about as far below them as the Simidae.

Recently Asked Questions

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.

-

Educational Resources
  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question