(22-07-2016, 01:02 PM)shahraam نوشته:

Please read the following passage which is taken from the book More Tales from Shakespeare and answer the questions based on what is stated or implied in it./0


Leontes, King of Sicily, and his queen, the lovely Hermione, once lived together in the greatest happiness.The love that they felt for each other made Leontes so happy that he had nothing left to wish for, except that he sometimes desired to see again his old companion and school friend, Polixenes, King of Bohemia, and to introduce his friend to his queen./1


Leontes and Polixenes had been brought up together as children, but after the deaths of their fathers, each one had to rule his own kingdom. So they had not met for many years, though they often exchanged gifts, letters and loving messages./2


At last, after repeated invitations, Polixenes came from Bohemia to the Sicilian court to pay his friend Leontes a visit. At first this visit gave nothing but pleasure to Leontes. He begged the queen to show special care and attention to his dear friend and he seemed to have found perfect happiness now that he was with his old companion. They talked about old times; they remembered their schooldays and their youthful games. They told stories of these to Hermione, who always took a cheerful part in these conversations./3


a. Why was Leontes initially so happy?/4

b. Did Leontes and Polixenes stay in touch in the years before they met as adults?/5

c. Who is the bolded ‘he’ in the third paragraph referring to?/6

(22-07-2016, 05:29 PM)Matinking نوشته:

Hi

a - According to the passage, his tranquilizing life with her queen, under the aegis of their glorious love, had a indispensable impact on his happiness

b - Yes, considerably. Based on the explicit assertions within the text, the two had correspondences, in view of gifts, letters and so on, within the years of separation, albeit no face-to-face appointment

 c - In my estimation, it refers to Polixenes. "he" pronoun, located in the previous sentence does point to Polixenes and his new happiness due to queen's behavior. The target "he" is just relegated to the same reference, with due attention to both semantics of the sentence and overall meaning of the complex statement, stemmed from "that" relative pronoun

Best,

Matin

(23-07-2016, 07:05 PM)shahraam نوشته:

And here’s how the tale continues:/0

 

When , after  a  long  stay,  Polixenes  was  preparing  to  leave, Hermione , at her husband's wish, begged him to make his visit longer./1

And now this good queen's sorrow began. Polixenes had refused to stay when Leontes asked him, but Hermione's gentle words persuaded him to do so. Leontes had no reason at all to doubt either the honesty of his friend Polixenes or the excellent character of his good queen, but he was immediately seized with an uncontrollable jealousy. Everything that Hermione did for Polixenes, although it was only done to  please  her  husband, increased the unfortunate king's jealousy. Suddenly, Leontes changed from a true friend, and the best and most loving of husbands, into  a wild and cruel creature. He sent for Camillo , one of the lords of his court, and told him of his suspicions about his wife's unfaithfulness.  Then   he   ordered   Camillo   to   poison Polixenes./2

Camillo was a good man, who knew that there was no truth in Leontes' suspicions. So, instead of poisoning Polixenes, he told him  about  his  master's  orders  and  agreed  to  escape  with him from Sicily. Polixenes, with Camillo's help, arrived safely in his own kingdom of Bohemia. From that time, Camillo lived in the king's court and became his chief friend and adviser./3

a.The word gentle in line 3 is closest in meaning to … ./4

I.acrimonious
II.sedating
III.soft
IV.polite



b.Why did Hermione show so much kindness to Polixenes?/5
c.Why did Leontes plot to kill Polixenes?/6
d.Why did Camillo help Polixenes escape?/7

(23-07-2016, 08:07 PM)Matinking نوشته:

Hi

a - She was supposed to change his mind, by means of a convincing tune. So, both "soft" and "sedating" are to-the-point, in my view. But, as a matter of final choice, I'd prefer to mark "sedating" as my candidate option.

b - The considerable coherency between her husband and the guy had affected on her to be interested in the man. Thus, she was keen on keeping him beside themselves to satisfy her man's wish

c - He had misunderstood about his wife's communications with Polixenes, to be something different than a solely-benevolent attempt to maintain a fraternity

d - As he did possess wisdom and equity, just listened to his soul to do the right thing, i.e. helping the innocent man, instead of blindly-obedience from his king

Best,

Matin

(23-07-2016, 11:39 PM)shahraam نوشته:

Hi Matin

a. Sedating is close but I'd choose soft. Sedating would be closer to calming or tranquilizing, however, the word gentle here is closer in meaning to kind or soft./0

b. You've got the right idea but I don't like the wording of your first sentence.Your second sentence is fine though./1

c. You've got the right idea but I don't like your choice of words here. /2

d. Here's how I'd rephrase your answer: Since he was a wise and just man, instead of blindly obeying his king and murdering an innocent man, helped him escape from Sicily. /3


Thanks
Shahram

Let's now have a look at a passage from an interesting book entitled “Politics” by Larry Johnston. Please note that this book is a university level text book and not a simplified novel. We will revisit our friend Shakespeare later ./0
I have made all the reading comprehension questions which I have posted so far in this forum myself. I have attached  the text in PDF format also which is easier to read./00


 
OBLIGATION and LEGITIMACY are two sides of the same coin: if you
recognize the legitimacy of government, then you are obliged to obey it.
Conversely, if you feel obliged to obey, then you have conceded legitimacy.
Obligation is a statement about what you feel you "ought" to do, but in a special
sense of the word "ought."/1
 
Let's suppose the penalty for petty theft is the loss of your hand; you are likely to
conclude that in this case you ought not to steal. Here the "ought" is tied to a
punishment; if the penalty for petty theft were a very small fine, you might well
calculate that theft is worth the risk of being caught and punished. The point of
obligation, by contrast, is that you feel there is a good reason not to steal,
regardless of the magnitude of the penalty. When you are obliged, you have
concluded, for one reason or another, that the rule "do not steal" is a legitimate
one. We have said that authority implies consent, in other words, authority rests
on a foundation of obligation; for some reason or another people accept the
legitimacy of the decision, and obey because they believe they "ought" to, no
matter what the penalty for disobeying. Conversely, it is where judgments of
obligation are lacking, or legitimacy is denied, that power—the implementation
of force—is required./2
 
So far we have been vague about what informs or causes the consent people give
to authority, that is, about why people feel obliged to obey, or to recognize the
state as legitimate. One influential treatment of this topic was provided by the
German sociologist Max Weber, who suggested that three grounds of legitimacy
are present in different societies./3
 
The first of these is TRADITIONAL legitimacy, that is, rule which is
justified on the basis of its long history and a "habitual orientation to conform."
(1958: 79). In other words it is custom, and the fact that things have always been
done this way makes them right under traditional legitimacy./4
 
Second, there is CHARISMATIC legitimacy, where it is believed that the
ruler possesses extraordinary personal qualities which justify his/her rule. This is
more than the view that such individuals are gifted; it is the claim that they are
uniquely gifted, and those who have convincingly claimed to be divinely chosen
have been among the most successful charismatic leaders. At any rate, Weber's
special use of "charismatic" here is altogether different from what we indicate by
calling politicians "charismatic" who are able to ignite public emotion./5
 
Finally, Weber spoke of LEGAL-RATIONAL authority, where legitimacy
derives from "belief in the validity of legal statute and functional 'competence'
based on rationally created rules" (1958:
79). Where authority is sanctioned by its basis in law, and assumed through a
rule-governed process, such as an election, its legitimacy is legal-rational. Thus,
while Pierre Trudeau was characterized as a "charismatic" politician in 1968, the
legitimacy of his government (like that of all Canadian governments) rested on a
legal-rational foundation./6
Legal-rational authority grounds the claims to obligation of most contemporary
states, although, in the past, states or their rulers frequently claimed authority on
traditional or charismatic grounds. /7
 
a. When someone feels obliged to obey a
governmental law
 
        I.            He does so, because he is afraid of the punishment
which would follow the disobedience
     II.            He does so because he is a good citizen
   III.            He does so because he recognizes the legitimacy of
the government
  IV.            He does so because he conceals the legitimacy of the
government
 
b. Coercion is necessary when
 
        I.            Legitimacy is recognized
     II.            Judgments of obligation are eminent
   III.            Legitimacy is not recognized
  IV.            Theocracy is chosen
 
c. Some may argue that the best form of political
system in Britain is monarchy. They reason that since
monarchs have ruled for many years in this land
so monarchy is the best suited political system for Britain


Which form of legitimacy does this group of people use
to justify their claim?/3
 
        I.            Legal rational
     II.            Traditional
   III.            Charismatic
  IV.            None of the above
 
d. Weber believes that a charismatic leader is someone
who
 
        I.            is honest
     II.            is gifted
   III.            can ignite public emotions
  IV.            is extraordinarily gifted
 
e. What kind of legitimacy was Pierre Trudeau’s

government based on?/4

 

        I.            Charismatic

     II.            Legal-rational

   III.            Traditional

    IV.            All of the above

(24-07-2016, 04:05 PM)shahraam نوشته:

Let's now have a look at a passage from an interesting book entitled “Politics” by Larry Johnston. Please note that this book is a university level text book and not a simplified novel. We will revisit our friend Shakespeare later ./0
I have made all the reading comprehension questions which I have posted so far in this forum myself. I have attached  the text in PDF format also which is easier to read./00


 
OBLIGATION and LEGITIMACY are two sides of the same coin: if you
recognize the legitimacy of government, then you are obliged to obey it.
Conversely, if you feel obliged to obey, then you have conceded legitimacy.
Obligation is a statement about what you feel you "ought" to do, but in a special
sense of the word "ought."/1
 
Let's suppose the penalty for petty theft is the loss of your hand; you are likely to
conclude that in this case you ought not to steal. Here the "ought" is tied to a
punishment; if the penalty for petty theft were a very small fine, you might well
calculate that theft is worth the risk of being caught and punished. The point of
obligation, by contrast, is that you feel there is a good reason not to steal,
regardless of the magnitude of the penalty. When you are obliged, you have
concluded, for one reason or another, that the rule "do not steal" is a legitimate
one. We have said that authority implies consent, in other words, authority rests
on a foundation of obligation; for some reason or another people accept the
legitimacy of the decision, and obey because they believe they "ought" to, no
matter what the penalty for disobeying. Conversely, it is where judgments of
obligation are lacking, or legitimacy is denied, that power—the implementation
of force—is required./2
 
So far we have been vague about what informs or causes the consent people give
to authority, that is, about why people feel obliged to obey, or to recognize the
state as legitimate. One influential treatment of this topic was provided by the
German sociologist Max Weber, who suggested that three grounds of legitimacy
are present in different societies./3
 
The first of these is TRADITIONAL legitimacy, that is, rule which is
justified on the basis of its long history and a "habitual orientation to conform."
(1958: 79). In other words it is custom, and the fact that things have always been
done this way makes them right under traditional legitimacy./4
 
Second, there is CHARISMATIC legitimacy, where it is believed that the
ruler possesses extraordinary personal qualities which justify his/her rule. This is
more than the view that such individuals are gifted; it is the claim that they are
uniquely gifted, and those who have convincingly claimed to be divinely chosen
have been among the most successful charismatic leaders. At any rate, Weber's
special use of "charismatic" here is altogether different from what we indicate by
calling politicians "charismatic" who are able to ignite public emotion./5
 
Finally, Weber spoke of LEGAL-RATIONAL authority, where legitimacy
derives from "belief in the validity of legal statute and functional 'competence'
based on rationally created rules" (1958:
79). Where authority is sanctioned by its basis in law, and assumed through a
rule-governed process, such as an election, its legitimacy is legal-rational. Thus,
while Pierre Trudeau was characterized as a "charismatic" politician in 1968, the
legitimacy of his government (like that of all Canadian governments) rested on a
legal-rational foundation./6
Legal-rational authority grounds the claims to obligation of most contemporary
states, although, in the past, states or their rulers frequently claimed authority on
traditional or charismatic grounds. /7
 
a. When someone feels obliged to obey a
governmental law
 
        I.            He does so, because he is afraid of the punishment
which would follow the disobedience
     II.            He does so because he is a good citizen
   III.            He does so because he recognizes the legitimacy of
the government
  IV.            He does so because he conceals the legitimacy of the
government
 
b. Coercion is necessary when
 
        I.            Legitimacy is recognized
     II.            Judgments of obligation are eminent
   III.            Legitimacy is not recognized
  IV.            Theocracy is chosen
 
c. Some may argue that the best form of political
system in Britain is monarchy. They reason that since
monarchs have ruled for many years in this land
so monarchy is the best suited political system for Britain


Which form of legitimacy does this group of people use
to justify their claim?/3
 
        I.            Legal rational
     II.            Traditional
   III.            Charismatic
  IV.            None of the above
 
d. Weber believes that a charismatic leader is someone
who
 
        I.            is honest
     II.            is gifted
   III.            can ignite public emotions
  IV.            is extraordinarily gifted
 
e. What kind of legitimacy was Pierre Trudeau’s

government based on?/4

 

        I.            Charismatic

     II.            Legal-rational

   III.            Traditional

    IV.            All of the above