Skip to content

P SonnetP ppSonnet 29 By William Shakespeare When, in disgra

Do you have a similar question? Our professional writers have done a similar paper in past. Give Us your instructions and wait for a professional assignment!        

P SonnetP ppSonnet 29 By William Shakespeare When, in disgrace withFortune and men’s eyes I all alone beweep my outcast state And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries And look upon myself and curse my fate, 5Wishing me like to one more rich in hope Featured like him, like him with friends possessed, Desiring this man’s art and that man’sscope, With what I most enjoy contented least: Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising, 10Haply I think on thee, and then my state, Like to the lark at break of day arising From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven’s gate. For thy sweet love rememb’red such wealth brings That then I scorn to change my state with kingsIn lines 10 – 12, the lark is compared withQuestion 1 options: a) the speaker’s country b) the speaker’s attitude c) hymns d) “thee” At line 10, the tone of the poem changes fromQuestion 2 options: a) gloom to joy b) disappointment to scorn c) ignorance to understanding d) detachment to commitment The speaker in the poem is PRIMARILY expressing hisQuestion 3 options: a) moods b) plans c) hopes d) ambitions What is the relation of the last two lines to the rest of the poem?Question 4 options: a) They contradict lines 8 – 12. b) They change the meaning of the first line. c) They make the rest of the poem unnecessary. d) They summarize what the poet has been saying. Which one of the following is NOT among the speaker’s complaints?Question 5 options: a) Other men do not think highly of me. b) I can’t even enjoy my pleasures. c) Praying seems to do no good. d) My loved one has left me. Which of the following BEST expresses the sense of line 5?Question 6 options: a) I wish rich people liked me. b) I wish I had a more promising future. c) I wish I had more faith in money than in hope. d) Wishing and hoping have never made me wealthy.Second Select Samaritan By Robert Finch We think we might adopt two children and The problem is to know which kind we want. Not Canadians. Refugees. But they can’t Be Jewish. A couple of Spaniards would be grand. 5 If they were fair. My husband hates dark hair. Afraid they are mostly dark in any case. Germans would do, we don’t care about race, Except Chinese, must draw the line somewhere. So would you let us know soon as you could 10 What sort’s available? We have a car And would be glad to come and look them over Whatever time you say. Poles might be good, Of the right type. Fussy? Perhaps we are But any kids we take will be in cloverThe Samaritans of this poem can be compared to the “good Samaritan” found in Luke 10:30-37 of the Bible. This is an example ofQuestion 7 options: a) symbolism b) metaphor c) paradox d) allusionQuestion 8 (1 point) When the speaker says, “But any kids we take will be in clover” (line 14). This meansQuestion 8 options: a) they will live on a farm b) the children will be well educated c) the couple will spend time with the children d) they have the money to provide for the children The speaker’s comments show the couple to beQuestion 9 options: a) compassionate b) concerned c) prejudiced d) selfish The speaker of the poem isQuestion 10 options: a) wealthy man b) a wealthy woman c) the author’s persona d) an adoption agency employee The author’s tone isQuestion 11 options: a) outraged b) serious c) satiric d) fussy The couple is willing to acceptQuestion 12 options: a) children of any race b) handicapped children c) only German children d) children who fit their standards This poem most closely resembles a / anQuestion 13 options: a) telephone conversation b) application form c) advertisement d) letter link above Question 14 (1 point) There are indications that Lear had favoured one daughter over the others. He favouredQuestion 14 options: a) Cordelia b) Goneril c) ReganQuestion 15 (1 point) Goneril’s speech (lines 57 – 63) is based on the use ofQuestion 15 options: a) irony b) allegory c) metaphor d) hyperboleQuestion 16 (1 point) In her speech (lines 71 – 78) Regan claimsQuestion 16 options: a) to be a better daughter than Goneril b) she lives only for her father’s approval c) herself to be against all emotion except love d) she can only be happy with her father’s loveQuestion 17 (1 point) Cordelia’s refusal to proclaim her love for her father in glowing terms reflects herQuestion 17 options: a) loyalty b) truthfulness c) insensitivity d) stubbornnessQuestion 18 (1 point) At the line “Nothing, my lord,” (line 89) the change in the writing style can be BEST described asQuestion 18 options: a) descriptive to expository b) joyous to sad c) flowery to plain d) clear to verboseQuestion 19 (1 point) In lines 38-56, Lear alludes to all of the following except to hisQuestion 19 options: a) coming old age b) division of land c) love for his daughters d) giving up his responsibilitiesQuestion 20 (1 point) Which of the following statements by King Lear BEST serves as motivation for the conflict in this scene?Question 20 options: a) “Meanwhile we shall express our darker purpose” (line 38) b) “…tis our fast intent to shake all cares and / business from our age” (lines 40 – 41) c) “Which of you shall we say doth love us most” (line 53) d) “Goneril, our eldest born, speak first” (lines 55 – 56)Question 21 (1 point) The audience has been prepared for Cordelia’s answer, “Nothing, my lord,” (line 89) byQuestion 21 options: a) the asides b) the opening speech c) Goneril’s excellent speech d) France and Burgundy’s interest in her”I Love You – This is a Recording” By Arthur Hoppe Herewith is another unwritten chapter from that unpublished text, A History of the World, 1950 to 1999. Its title: “Ma Bell Saves the Day.” By the early 1970’s, the old morality had crumbled. The old certitudes had vanished. Wars, riots and revolutions flourished. Neighbor mistrusted neighbor. 5 People no longer touched each other. Conversations were icily polite. And from the look in the eyes of mankind, it was clear that the human race was on the brink. It was the telephone company that preserved civilization. With people retreating inward on themselves, the number of telephone calls 10 placed daily had dropped alarmingly. To stimulate business, it was suggested that the company provide another recorded message as a public service. “We already give our subscribers the time and the weather,” said the Board Chairman irritably. “What else do people need these days?” “Sympathy?” suggested a vice-president, half jokingly. 15 The new service was an instant success. At first people were hesitant to dial S-Y-M-P-A-T-H-Y.” “That’s silly,” they’d say, shaking their heads. Then, when they were sure no one was listening, they’d pick up the phone in embarrassed secretiveness. “Poor dear,” the recording began in a gentle voice of sweet consolation. “I’m so 20 terribly sorry for you. Oh, the pain you must be suffering! But how brave you are not to show it. How very proud of you I am. Poor dear.” After one month, studies showed each subscriber was making an average of 3.4 calls to the number daily. The company immediately announced plans for new recorder services. Next came, “I-L-O-V-E-Y-O-U”: 25″Oh, dearest, how deeply I love you – with my whole soul, my whole being. You are everything on earth to me – my sun, my moon, my stars…” This was quickly followed by F-R-I-E-N-D-S-H-I-P” (“Hi, there, old buddy…”), “C-O-N-F-I-D-E-N-C-E” (“Gosh, you’re just about the greatest…”) and “S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y” (“There, now, there’s absolutely nothing to worry about as long as we have each other”). Special messages were added for those with special needs, such as “M-O-T-H-E-R” (“Oh, it’s so good to hear your voice, son. Are you getting enough to eat? Are you wearing your galoshes? Are you…”). Surprisingly, one of the most popular was “A-U-T-H-O-R-I-T-Y” “When you hear the signal, you will have sixty seconds to state your dilemma.” After sixty seconds, 36 a stern voice came on to thunder: “You know what’s right. Now, by God, do it!). Thus humanity came to have everything that man had always wanted from his fellow Man – sympathy, love, friendship, confidence, security and authority. And yet, oddly enough, deep down people were still uneasy. 40 Further studies were made. And at last the telephone company came up with the solution: “U-L-T-I-M-A-T-E-N-E-E-D.”Question 22 (1 point) The last line of the short story is an example of what type of irony?Question 22 options: a) Situational b) Dramatic c) Socratic d) VerbalQuestion 23 (1 point) “People no longer touched each other” (line 5) suggests that people areQuestion 23 options: a) contagious b) mistrustful c) suspicious d) isolatedQuestion 24 (1 point) The telephone company first instituted the sympathy number becauseQuestion 24 options: a) sales were low b) people were becoming disillusioned c) the subscribers asked for the service d) the vice-president thought it would be a good ideaQuestion 25 (1 point) The opening paragraphs suggest that society is “on the brink” (line 7) ofQuestion 25 options: a) fear b) apathy c) sinfulness d) destructionQuestion 26 (1 point) The theme of the story is most clearly expressed in which of the following statements?Question 26 options: a) Machines are capable of fulfilling all human needs. b) Technology offers hope for the salvation of society. c) People are becoming alienated from each other as technology advances. d) The human values of previous generations are still important in our society.”Appointment with Love” By S.I. Kishar Six minutes to six, said the great round clock over the information booth in Grand Central Station. The tall young Army lieutenant who had just come from the direction of the tracks lifted his sunburned face, and his eyes narrowed to note the exact time. His heart was pounding with a beat that shocked him because he could not control it. In six minutes, he would 5 see the woman who had filled such a special place in his life for the past thirteen months, the woman he had never seen, yet whose written words had been with him and sustained him unfailingly. He placed himself as close as he could to the information booth, just beyond the ring of people besieging the clerks…. 10 Lieutenant Blandford remembered one night in particular, the worst of the fighting, when his plane had been caught in the midst of a pack of Zeros. He had seen the grinning face of one of the Jap pilots. In one of this letters, he had confessed to her that he often felt fear, and only a few days before this battle, he had received her answer: “Of course you fear….all brave men do. Didn’t 15 King David know fear? That’s why he wrote the Twenty-third Psalm. Next time you doubt yourself, I want you to hear my voice reciting to you: “Yea, though I walk in the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for Thou are with me.’…” And he had remembered; he had heard her imagined voice, and it had renewed his strength and skill. Now he was going to hear her real voice. Four minutes to six. His face grew sharp. 20 Under the immense, starred roof, people were walking fast, like threads of color being woven into a gray web. A girl passed close to him, and Lieutenant Blandford started. She was wearing a red flower in her suit lapel, but it was a crimson sweetpea, not the little red rose they had agreed upon. Besides, this girl was too young, about eighteen whereas Hollis Meynell had frankly told him she was thirty. “Well, what of it?” he had answered. “I’m thirty-two.” He was 25 twenty-nine. His mind went back to that book – the book the Lord Himself must have put into his hands out to of the hundreds of Army library books sent to the Florida training camp. Of Human Bondage, it was; and throughout the book were notes in a woman’s writing. He had always hated that writing-in habit, but these remarks were different. He had never believed that a 30 woman could see into a man’s heart so tenderly, so understandingly. Her name was on the book plate: Hollie Meynell. He had got hold of a New York City telephone book and found out her address. He had written, she had answered. Next day he had been shipped out, but they had gone on writing. For thirteen months, she had faithfully replied, and more than replied. When his letters 35 did not arrive, she wrote anyway, and now he believed he loved her, and she loved him. But she had refused all his pleas to send him her photograph. That seemed rather bad, of course. But she had explained: “If your feeling for me has any reality, any honest basis, what I look like won’t matter. Suppose I’m beautiful. I’d always be haunted by the feeling that you had been taking a chance on just that, and that kind of love would disgust me. Suppose I’m plain 40 (and you must admit that this is more likely) then I’d always fear that you were only going on writing to me because you were lonely and had no one else. No, don’t ask for my picture. When you come to New York, you shall see me and then you shall make your decision. Remember, 12 both of us are free to stop or to go on after that – whichever we choose…” One minute to six…he pulled hard on a cigarette. 45 Then Lieutenant Blandford’s heart leaped higher than his plane had ever done. A young woman was coming toward him. Her figure was long and slim; her blond hair lay back in curls from her delicate ears. Her eyes were blue as flowers, her lips and chin had a gentle firmness. In her pale green suit, she was like springtime come alive. He started toward her, entirely forgetting to notice that she was wearing no rose, and as 50 he moved, a small, provocative smile curved her lips. “Going my way soldier?” she murmured. Uncontrollable, he made one step closer to her. Then he saw Hollis Meynell. She was standing almost directly behind the girl, a woman well past forty, her graying hair tucked under a worn hat. She was more than plump; her thick-ankled feet were thrust into 55 low-heeled shoes. But she wore a red rose in the rumpled brown lapel of her coat. The girl in the green suit was walking quickly away. Blandford felt as though he were being split in two, so keen was his desire to follow the girl, yet so deep was his longing for the woman whose spirit had truly companioned and upheld his own; and there she stood. Her pale, plump face was gentle and sensible; he could see that 60 now. Her gray eyes had a warm, kindly twinkle. Lieutenant Blandford did not hesitate. His fingers gripped the small, worn, blue leather copy of Of Human Bondage, which was to identify him to her. This would not be love, but it would be something precious, something perhaps even rarer than love – a friendship for which he had been and must ever be grateful… 65 He squared his broad shoulders, saluted and held the book out toward the woman, although even while he spoke he felt choked by the bitterness of his disappointment. “I’m Lieutenant John Blandford, and you – you are Miss Meynell. I’m so glad you could meet me. May – may I take you to dinner?” The woman’s face broadened in a tolerant smile. “I don’t know what all this is about 70 son,” she answered. “That young lady in the green suit, who just went by, she begged me to wear this rose on my coat. And she said that if you asked me to go out with you, I should tell you that she’s waiting for you in that big restaurant across the street. She said it was some kind of test. I’ve got two boys with Uncle Sam myself, so I didn’t mind to oblige you.”Question 27 (1 point) The point of view used in this story isQuestion 27 options: a) objective b) first person c) omniscient d) limited omniscientQuestion 28 (1 point) At the beginning of the story, Lieutenant Blandford feelsQuestion 28 options: a) confident b) relieved c) nervous d) fearfulQuestion 29 (1 point) The climax of the story occurs in which of the following lines?Question 29 options: a) “Then he saw Hollis Meynell.” (line 52) b) “Blandford felt as though he were being split in two….” (line 57) c) “Lieutenant Blandford did not hesitate.” (line 61) d) “And she said…I should tell you that she’s waiting for you….” (line 71-72)Question 30 (1 point) Hollis Meynell refuses to send a photograph because sheQuestion 30 options: a) fears rejection because she is plain b) wants to be thought of for her intellect, not her looks c) fears that her appearance would influence his feelings for her d) doesn’t want Lieutenant Blandford to know that she lied about her ageQuestion 31 (1 point) The main conflict of this story isQuestion 31 options: a) Hollis Meynell vs. herself. b) Lieutenant Blandford vs. himself. c) Lieutenant Blandford vs. his environment. d) Lieutenant Blandford vs. Hollis Meynell.Question 32 (1 point) Lieutenant Blandford is first drawn to Hollis Meynell because of herQuestion 32 options: a) understanding of men’s hearts b) knowledge of the Bible c) concern for his welfare d) appearance”The Scientific Pursuit of Happiness” By Frank Trippet 1 mc 2 may well = E in the known physical universe. Nothing quite that pat can be said about the cosmos of the human temperament. In the play of emotion, logic is seldom evident, and the laws of gravity and thermodynamics never. What goes up in the psyche sometimes does not come down; the boiling points of individuals and collectives alike are impossible to fix. In light of this, it is no wonder that science long shied away from study, or attempting to explain, that most subtle and elusive of all human moods: happiness. Instead, it happily left the field to philosophers, preachers, poets?nd the swarms of author-therapists who yearly vie for bestsellerdom with new formulas for attaining this desired estate. 2 Lately, however, science has begun to nose around in that shifty terrain it so long neglected. Tenuous scientific probes of the happiness phenomenon, as an aspect of mental health, were organized as long ago as the 1960s. Perhaps because happiness itself was all but out of style in the days of Viet Nam, urban riots and the burgeoning dope culture, the trend never took off. Only now is it becoming clear that our gladness is likely to be subjected to the same methodical research and analysis that has been lavished for generations on our madness. The signs that happyology is aborning as a discipline have come in sequences of earnest surveys, widespread drizzles of articles and now a spate of hardback tomes. 3 An archetype of the current genre is Happy People, by Columbia Psychology Professor Jonathan Freedman. It promises to reveal “what happiness is, who has it and why.” Freedman analyzes the results of both popular surveys and casual interviews and also attempts, he says, “to present what we, as social scientists, know about happiness.” Soon to be published is Optimism: The Biology of Hope, by Rutgers University Anthropologist Lionel Tiger; it explores the possible biological origins of the human sanguineness that underlies feelings of well-being, whatever they are called. New York Psychoanalyst Willard Gaylin has just weighed in with a study called Feelings: Our Vital Signs, which scrutinizes and tries to delineate all the familiar varieties of human feeling. Gaylin thus probes the character of a state that he calls not “happiness” but “feeling good.” 4 A proliferation of less ambitious studies and surveys, some of them amounting to market research, has occurred in the past few years. The University of Michigan Institute for Social Research conducted a nationwide study of income and education as determinants of happiness. The advertising firm Batten, Barton, Durstine and Osborn carried out a similar but broader survey to find out whether their clients’ potential consumers “were happier . . . than other segments of the population.” Scientific studies of worker 14 “contentment” have been going on for years, to be sure, but are not quite the same as the new wave of investigations into the larger character of well-being. It may be too soon to say where these new excursions will lead, but it’s not too early to inquire. 5 First off, analytical scrutiny of happiness should not be confused with preaching about it. Books hustling formulas and drills that are supposed to produce happiness circulate these days in numbers that are too great to count, let alone mention. These products of the booming feel-good industry invariably try to evoke happiness, but they seldom describe or analyze it. That, of course, is the fascination of the scientific challenge. The feel-good trade’s blizzard of lighter- than-air tracts proves nothing whatever about happiness except that a lot of people are willing to pay for help in pursuing it. 6 The new happyologists are doing a bit better than that, though their young science is now approximately where navigation was before the invention of the compass. In some ways, as Humorist Russell Baker recently observed, the happyologists resemble sociologists in their dedication to proving what everybody has known all along. Baker groaned at the supposedly big discovery that an unhappy childhood does not necessarily lead to an unhappy adulthood. Who could fail to echo his groan when it is reported, as though it were news, that money, beyond some uncertain minimum, does not buy happiness? A horselaugh might even be the appropriate response when Psychoanalyst Gaylin declares: “It is …good to ‘feel good.'” 7 The one thing common to most of the research is the conspicuous wariness of the investigators. The utterly elusive ingredients of the mood they are examining force them to turn away from the phenomenon itself. They prefer to tabulate its incidence and parameters. So, even though they maintain their scientific detachment and method in analyzing data, to collect it they have had no convenient choice but to adopt the timetested techniques of public opinion polling. Subjects are asked merely to declare their degree of happiness, not define. Even Pollster Louis Harris turns up as an unlikely temporary happyologist, reporting for this month’s “Playboy” that while 49% of American men rank sexual satisfaction as “very important” to happiness, 84% give that same crucial weight to family life. 8 Not all the early discoveries are that breathtaking, although many of them come in similar statistical form. Findings may vary from survey to survey, but seldom astonishingly. Some results that fail to amaze can still be heartening. Most studies so far confirm that happiness does not depend on any single factor. That is, neither geographical location nor financial status nor age is a determinant of happiness. The happy are slightly more likely to be married, but unhappiness is anything but epidemic among the single. Neither the young, the middle-aged nor the old have any special claim on happiness. 9 People who like their jobs (and up to 82% claim to) tend to be happier in general. An attitude of optimism (held by some 70%) often coincides with happiness, but quite a few of the 6% who are convinced pessimists are also happy. Good health is a big factor in happiness to some, yet poor health does not turn out to be incompatible with happiness. Not even “satisfaction” is indispensable to happiness. Says University of Michigan 15 Psychologist Stephen Withey in “Subjective Elements of Well-Being”, a collection of papers presented in 1972: “Young people tend to report more happiness than satisfaction, while older people tend to say that they are more satisfied than they are happy.” 10 The incongruous and even adverse situations that seem to support happiness may only confirm the insight ventured by turn-of-the-century Psychologist William James. “Life and its negation,” wrote James, “are beaten up inextricably together. The two are equally essential facts of existence and all natural happiness thus seems infected with a contradiction.” One broad contradiction that emerges from the happiness surveys is that, in spite of all the reports of the emptiness of modern life, relatively few people consider themselves very unhappy. On the contrary, an overwhelming majority of Americans (60% in one survey, 70% in another, 86% in a third) consider themselves reasonably happy. Only the heartless could be harsh toward the science that bears such tidings. 11 Still, happyology has defaulted so far on the really big question: Why are people happy or why not? And more fundamental, what is happiness? The young science is far from the practical goal of providing guidance on how to attain happiness. “Alas,” says Freedman, “the overwhelming finding of all the research is that there is no easy solution, no foolproof strategy for find it.” 12 Lionel Tiger’s forthcoming book offers some slightly more definite advice?r at least postulation. Although he is not studying happiness as such, the anthropologist argues that humankind does not have to go looking far for its basic source of well-being: it is built right into the human body. Says he: “Our benign sense of the future could have been bred into us and other complex animals out of the need to survive.” Tiger speculates that man pushes ever onward, inextinguishably optimistic in the face of adversity, because of his biochemistry. The key to mankind’s optimism, he argues, lies in those lately discovered substances called endorphins. These are the morphine-like chemical agents that the body itself produces, sending them into special sites of the brain and spinal cord to reduce pain. In this, says Tiger, “We may be on the way to finding a specific source for notions of personal well-being. Endorphins may not serve principally to reduce pain. Their major function may be to anesthetize the organism against responding too directly and forcefully to negative cognitive stimuli in the environment. They permit the animal to obscure the understanding that its situation is dire.” 13 If that is so, people who anesthetize themselves with booze or pot may be trying to achieve unnaturally what endorphins do naturally. Still, since individual body chemistries vary, the endorphin theory might account for the fact that some people are habitually happier than others: some might just have a bigger supply of this natural analgesic. It may even suggest, moreover, one concrete way in which human beings might assure their sense of happiness; yet this?he ingestion of synthetic endorphins?is unnervingly like the drug-popping route to happiness envisioned in Brave New World. In all this, alas, nothing much is added to the question that has always nagged the brave old world: Just what is happiness? 14 Given time, the happyologists could conceivably come up with a useful, or at least a 16 discerning, answer. Perhaps the question is so fundamental that, like love and wisdom, it will always elude human definition. For the moment, surely it can be answered decisively, for better or worse, only be each individual. In short, the considerable resources, even good intentions, of science have so far disclosed little about happiness that was not available in the words of Seneca (“Unblest is he who thinks himself unblest”) in ancient times or those of Abe Lincoln (“Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be”) in a more recent epoch. Happiness, in short, awaits its Newton, its Galileo. Frank Trippet TIME, March 19, 197Question 33 (1 point) The predominant type of support used in paragraphs 7 – 10 isQuestion 33 options: a) statistics b) anecdotes c) hypothetical examples d) quotations from expertsQuestion 34 (1 point) This essay is primarilyQuestion 34 options: a) narrative b) expository c) descriptive d) argumentativeQuestion 35 (1 point) According to Russell Baker (paragraph 6), happyologyQuestion 35 options: a) sheds new light on human behavior b) only tells us what we already know c) is the same as sociology d) is a young scienceQuestion 36 (1 point) Paragraph 3 uses which method of development?Question 36 options: a) Analysis b) Analogy c) Examples d) Comparison and contrastQuestion 37 (1 point) The author’s tone can best be described asQuestion 37 options: a) skeptical b) mocking c) morose d) sincereQuestion 38 (1 point) The primary difference between “happyologists” and “feel-good” experts (paragraph 5) is that:Question 38 options: a) “happyologists” preach about happiness b) only “feel-good” experts charge for their services c) only the “happyologists” try to analyze happiness d) “feel-good” experts are more dedicated to their workQuestion 39 (1 point) The most commonly used research technique of happyologists isQuestion 39 options: a) observation b) case studies c) public opinion polls d) laboratory experimentationArts & HumanitiesEnglishENGLISH 201

Get a plagiarism-free order today   we guarantee confidentiality and a professional paper and we will meet the deadline.    

Leave a Reply

Order a plagiarism free paper today. Get 20% off your first order!