Question

Read the following passage and answer the question that follows. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson Part 1 Mr. Utterson the lawyer was a man of a rugged countenance, that was never lighted by a smile; cold, scanty and embarrassed in discourse; backward in sentiment; lean, long, dusty, dreary, and yet somehow lovable. At friendly meetings, and when the wine was to his taste, something eminently human beaconed from his eye; something indeed which never found its way into his talk, but which spoke not only in these silent symbols of the after-dinner face, but more often and loudly in the acts of his life. He was austere with himself; drank gin when he was alone, to mortify a taste for vintages; and though he enjoyed the theatre, had not crossed the doors of one for twenty years. But he had an approved tolerance for others; sometimes wondering, almost with envy, at the high pressure of spirits involved in their misdeeds; and in any extremity inclined to help rather than to reprove. "I incline to, Cain's heresy*," he used to say. "I let my brother go to the devil in his quaintly 'own way. " In this character, it was frequently his fortune to be the last reputable acquaintance and the last good influence in the lives of down-going men. And to such as these, so long as they came about his chambers, he never marked a shade of change in his demeanour. No doubt the feat was easy to Mr. Utterson; for he was undemonstrative at the best, and even his friendship seemed to be founded in a similar catholicity of good-nature. It is the mark of a modest man to accept his friendly circle ready-made from the hands of opportunity; and that was the lawyer's way. His friends were those of his own blood or those whom he had known the longest; his affections, like ivy, were the growth of time, they implied no aptness in the object. Hence, no doubt, the bond that united him to Mr. Richard Enfield, his distant kinsman, the well-known man about town. It was a nut to crack for many, what these two could s.

Answer 1

The statement which best explains why this excerpt is part of the plot’s exposition is:

Option B

• Mr. Utterson the lawyer was a man of a rugged countenance that was never lighted by a smile cold, scanty and embarrassed in discourse.

At cordial gatherings, and when the wine was as he would prefer, something prominently human beaconed from his eye something without a doubt which never tracked down its direction into his discussion however which talked not just in these quiet images of the later supper face, yet more often and uproariously in the demonstrations of his life.

He was grim with himself  drank gin when he was separated from everyone else, to humiliate a preference for vintages and however he partook in the theater, had not crossed the entryways of one for a very long time.

In any case, he had a supported capacity to bear others now and then pondering, nearly with envy, at the high tension of spirits associated with their wrongdoings and in any furthest point leaned to help rather than to upbraid.

Almost certainly the accomplishment was not difficult to Mr. Utterson for he was undemonstrative at the best, and even his fellowship appeared to be established in a comparable catholicity of agreeableness.

It is the characteristic of an unassuming man to acknowledge his amicable circle instant from the hands of chance and that was the legal counselor's way.

His companions were those of his own blood or those whom he had known the longest this warm gestures, similar to ivy, were the development of time, they inferred no inclination in the article.

Consequently, most likely, the bond that unified him to Mr. Richard Enfield, his far off brother, the notable man about town. It was a nut to open for someone.

For more information, refer the following link:

brainly.com/question/25737075