HOBET-Health Occupations Basic Entrance Test Set 3

At the time Jane Austen's novels were published between 1811 and 1818 English literature was not part
of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political
groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would
identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge,
certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that "novel-reading occasions the
destruction of the mind's power".
These attitudes towards novels help explain why Austen received little attention from early nineteenth
century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to
receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as
incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals "outside of ordinary
experience, " for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen's fiction. Her
novels, wrote Scott, "present to the reader an accurate and exact. Picture of ordinary everyday people and
places, reminiscent of seventeenth century Flemish painting. " Scott did not use the word "realistic
probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed
agreement with Scott's evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we
have called Austen's realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth
since they are ordinary persons "so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our
own" Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through
recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately
especially praised Austen's ability to create characters who "mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and
virtue, as in life they are always mingled. "Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen's art of
characterization to Sicken's, stating his preference for Austin's. often anticipated the reservations of
twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes' complaint in 1859 that Austen's range
of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her
focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other
hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in
any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them,
Austen's steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered
controversial.
The primary purpose of the passage is to

At the time Jane Austen's novels were published between 1811 and 1818 English literature was not part
of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political
groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would
identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge,
certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that "novel-reading occasions the
destruction of the mind's power".
These attitudes towards novels help explain why Austen received little attention from early nineteenth
century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to
receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as
incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals "outside of ordinary
experience, " for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen's fiction. Her
novels, wrote Scott, "present to the reader an accurate and exact. Picture of ordinary everyday people and
places, reminiscent of seventeenth century Flemish painting. " Scott did not use the word "realistic
probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed
agreement with Scott's evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we
have called Austen's realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth
since they are ordinary persons "so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our
own" Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through
recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately
especially praised Austen's ability to create characters who "mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and
virtue, as in life they are always mingled. "Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen's art of
characterization to Sicken's, stating his preference for Austin's. often anticipated the reservations of
twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes' complaint in 1859 that Austen's range
of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her
focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other
hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in
any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them,
Austen's steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered
controversial.
The passage supplies information for answering which of the following questions?

At the time Jane Austen's novels were published between 1811 and 1818 English literature was not part
of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political
groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would
identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge,
certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that "novel-reading occasions the
destruction of the mind's power".
These attitudes towards novels help explain why Austen received little attention from early nineteenth
century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to
receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as
incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals "outside of ordinary
experience, " for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen's fiction. Her
novels, wrote Scott, "present to the reader an accurate and exact. Picture of ordinary everyday people and
places, reminiscent of seventeenth century Flemish painting. " Scott did not use the word "realistic
probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed
agreement with Scott's evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we
have called Austen's realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth
since they are ordinary persons "so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our
own" Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through
recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately
especially praised Austen's ability to create characters who "mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and
virtue, as in life they are always mingled. "Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen's art of
characterization to Sicken's, stating his preference for Austin's. often anticipated the reservations of
twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes' complaint in 1859 that Austen's range
of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her
focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other
hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in
any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them,
Austen's steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered
controversial.
The authors mentions that English literature "was" not part of any academic curriculum " in the early
nineteenth century in order to

At the time Jane Austen's novels were published between 1811 and 1818 English literature was not part
of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political
groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would
identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge,
certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that "novel-reading occasions the
destruction of the mind's power".
These attitudes towards novels help explain why Austen received little attention from early nineteenth
century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to
receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as
incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals "outside of ordinary
experience, " for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen's fiction. Her
novels, wrote Scott, "present to the reader an accurate and exact. Picture of ordinary everyday people and
places, reminiscent of seventeenth century Flemish painting. " Scott did not use the word "realistic
probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed
agreement with Scott's evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we
have called Austen's realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth
since they are ordinary persons "so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our
own" Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through
recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately
especially praised Austen's ability to create characters who "mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and
virtue, as in life they are always mingled. "Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen's art of
characterization to Sicken's, stating his preference for Austin's. often anticipated the reservations of
twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes' complaint in 1859 that Austen's range
of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her
focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other
hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in
any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them,
Austen's steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered
controversial.
The passage supplies information to suggest that the religious and political groups mentioned and Whately
might have agreed that a novel

At the time Jane Austen's novels were published between 1811 and 1818 English literature was not part
of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political
groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would
identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge,
certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that "novel-reading occasions the
destruction of the mind's power".
These attitudes towards novels help explain why Austen received little attention from early nineteenth
century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to
receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as
incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals "outside of ordinary
experience, " for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen's fiction. Her
novels, wrote Scott, "present to the reader an accurate and exact. Picture of ordinary everyday people and
places, reminiscent of seventeenth century Flemish painting. " Scott did not use the word "realistic
probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed
agreement with Scott's evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we
have called Austen's realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth
since they are ordinary persons "so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our
own" Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through
recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately
especially praised Austen's ability to create characters who "mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and
virtue, as in life they are always mingled. "Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen's art of
characterization to Sicken's, stating his preference for Austin's. often anticipated the reservations of
twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes' complaint in 1859 that Austen's range
of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her
focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other
hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in
any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them,
Austen's steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered
controversial.
The author quotes Coleridge in order to

At the time Jane Austen's novels were published between 1811 and 1818 English literature was not part
of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political
groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would
identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge,
certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that "novel-reading occasions the
destruction of the mind's power".
These attitudes towards novels help explain why Austen received little attention from early nineteenth
century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to
receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as
incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals "outside of ordinary
experience, " for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen's fiction. Her
novels, wrote Scott, "present to the reader an accurate and exact. Picture of ordinary everyday people and
places, reminiscent of seventeenth century Flemish painting. " Scott did not use the word "realistic
probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed
agreement with Scott's evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we
have called Austen's realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth
since they are ordinary persons "so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our
own" Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through
recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately
especially praised Austen's ability to create characters who "mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and
virtue, as in life they are always mingled. "Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen's art of
characterization to Sicken's, stating his preference for Austin's. often anticipated the reservations of
twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes' complaint in 1859 that Austen's range
of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her
focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other
hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in
any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them,
Austen's steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered
controversial.
The passage suggests that twentieth century Marxists would have admired Jane Austen's noels more if the
novels, a he Marxists understood them, had

At the time Jane Austen's novels were published between 1811 and 1818 English literature was not part
of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political
groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would
identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge,
certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that "novel-reading occasions the
destruction of the mind's power".
These attitudes towards novels help explain why Austen received little attention from early nineteenth
century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to
receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as
incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals "outside of ordinary
experience, " for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen's fiction. Her
novels, wrote Scott, "present to the reader an accurate and exact. Picture of ordinary everyday people and
places, reminiscent of seventeenth century Flemish painting. " Scott did not use the word "realistic
probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed
agreement with Scott's evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we
have called Austen's realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth
since they are ordinary persons "so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our
own" Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through
recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately
especially praised Austen's ability to create characters who "mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and
virtue, as in life they are always mingled. "Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen's art of
characterization to Sicken's, stating his preference for Austin's. often anticipated the reservations of
twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes' complaint in 1859 that Austen's range
of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her
focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other
hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in
any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them,
Austen's steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered
controversial.
It can be inferred from the passage that Whately found Dickens character to be

At the time Jane Austen's novels were published between 1811 and 1818 English literature was not part
of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political
groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would
identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge,
certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that "novel-reading occasions the
destruction of the mind's power".
These attitudes towards novels help explain why Austen received little attention from early nineteenth
century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to
receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as
incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals "outside of ordinary
experience, " for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen's fiction. Her
novels, wrote Scott, "present to the reader an accurate and exact. Picture of ordinary everyday people and
places, reminiscent of seventeenth century Flemish painting. " Scott did not use the word "realistic
probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed
agreement with Scott's evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we
have called Austen's realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth
since they are ordinary persons "so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our
own" Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through
recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately
especially praised Austen's ability to create characters who "mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and
virtue, as in life they are always mingled. "Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen's art of
characterization to Sicken's, stating his preference for Austin's. often anticipated the reservations of
twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes' complaint in 1859 that Austen's range
of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her
focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other
hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in
any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them,
Austen's steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered
controversial.
According to the passage, the lack of critical attention paid to Jane Austen can be explained by all of the
following nineteenth-century attitudes towards the novel EXCEPT the

At the time Jane Austen's novels were published between 1811 and 1818 English literature was not part
of any academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political
groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would
identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even Cole-ridge,
certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that "novel-reading occasions the
destruction of the mind's power".
These attitudes towards novels help explain why Austen received little attention from early nineteenth
century literary critics. (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to
receive much critical attention). The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as
incisive as twentieth century criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals "outside of ordinary
experience, " for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen's fiction. Her
novels, wrote Scott, "present to the reader an accurate and exact. Picture of ordinary everyday people and
places, reminiscent of seventeenth century Flemish painting. " Scott did not use the word "realistic
probability in judging novels. The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed
agreement with Scott's evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we
have called Austen's realistic method. Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth
since they are ordinary persons "so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our
own" Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through
recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whately
especially praised Austen's ability to create characters who "mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and
virtue, as in life they are always mingled. "Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen's art of
characterization to Sicken's, stating his preference for Austin's. often anticipated the reservations of
twentieth-century critics. An example of such a response was Lewes' complaint in 1859 that Austen's range
of subjects and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her
focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other
hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in
any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them,
Austen's steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered
controversial.
The author would most likely agree that which of the following ios the best measure of a writer's literary
success?

Despite their many differences of temperament and of literary perspective, Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne,
Melville, and Whitman share certain beliefs. Common to all these writers is their humanistic perspective. Its
basic premises are that humans are the spiritual center of the universe and that in them alone is the clue of
the nature, history and ultimately the cosmos itself. Without denying outright the existenced either of a deity
or of brute matter, this perspective nevertheless rejects them as exclusive principles of interpretation and
prefers to explain humans and the world in terms of humanity itself. This preference is expressed most
clearly in the Transcendentalist principle that the structure of the universe literally duplicates the structure
of the individual self: therefore, all knowledge begins with self-knowledge.
This common perspective is almost always universalized. Its emphasis is not upon the individual as a
particular European or American, but upon the hyuman as universal, freed from the accidents of time,
space, birth and talent. Thus, for Emerson, the "American Scholar" turns out to be simply "Main Tinking";
while, for Whitman, the "Song of Myself" merges imperceptibly into a song of all the "children of Adam:,"
where "every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you." Also common to all five writers is the belief
that individual virtue and happiness depends upon the self-realization, which, in turn, depend upon the
harmonious reconciliation of two universal psychological tendencies: first, the self-asserting impulse of the
individual to withdraw; to remain unique and separate, and to be responsible only to himself or herself, and
second, the self-transcending impulse of the individual to embrace the whole world in the experience of a
single moment and to know and become one with that world. These conflicting impulses can be seen in the
democratic ethic. Democracy advocates individualism, he preservation of the individual's freedom and self-
expression. But the democratic self is torn between the duty to self, which is implied by the concept of
liberty, and the duty to society, which is implied by the concept of equality and fraternity.
A third assumption common to the five writers is that intuition and imagination offer a surer road to truth
than does abstract logic or scientific method. It is illustrated by their emphasis upon the introspection-their
belief that the clue to external nature is to be found in the inner world of individual psychology and by their
interpretation of experience as, in essence, symbolic. Both thesestresses presume an organic relationship
between the self and the cosmos of which only intuition and imagination can properly take account. These
writers' faith in the imagination and in themselves as practitioners of imagination led them conceive of the
writer as a seer and enabled them to achieve supreme confidence in their own moral and metaphysical
insights.
The author's discussion of Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, and Whitman is primarily concerned
with explaining.