Thus making ineffective the opposition’s argument
Answer:
im pretty sure i've never met a "very" before but ay who knows
Explanation:
Read this passage.
<em>Comedy is, as we have said, an imitation of characters of a lower type- not, however, in the full sense of the word bad, the ludicrous being merely a subdivision of the ugly. It consists in some defect or ugliness which is not painful or destructive. To take an obvious example, the comic mask is ugly and distorted, but does not imply pain. </em>
Question: What conclusion can <u><em>NOT</em></u> be drawn from the text?
Options:
- A) Comedies tended to focus on ordinary characters of a less noble type.
- B) Characters in a comedy are not necessarily morally bad, so much as physically funny in an exaggerated way.
- C)Comedy is an imitation of an action that is serious.
- D)As the characters of a comedy represent "a lower-type" of person, so the events typically portrayed in comedies tend towards the ordinary affairs of everyday people.
Answer: The correct answer is option: <u>C) Comedy is an imitation of an action that is serious. </u>
Explanation: In the text, it mentions that comedy focuses on characters of a lower type, meaning ordinary and less noble types of characters. It also mentions that they're not in the full sense of the word bad nor destructive but rather ludicrous meaning amusing. However, it never mentions that comedy is an imitation of an action that is serious nor does it define comedy by seriousness.
Hey there,
This passage is written in D) Third Person Limited
With third person limited, the narrator knows all the feelings and actions of one character. He talks about them as he, she or they.
Best Of Luck,
- I.A. -
