Example 7
Read the passage and answer the question which follows:
“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. ... People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!” [16-year-old Greta Thunberg spoke with passion and anger at the United Nations,] calling out those who have been apathetic towards bringing about global warming. Her speech was criticised by many for Thunberg’s bellicosity, which allegedly put off potential sympathisers to the movement...
Thunberg’s speech – and what we make of it – epitomises an age-old conflict between those who oppose anger for its seemingly counterproductive consequences, and those who find anger a natural and appropriate human emotion with value in both public and private spheres. From the righteous, worldwide anger that launched the 2017 Women’s March...to the nihilistic anger propelling the anti-extradition bill movement in Hong Kong, to the fearful anger emanating from the ongoing anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests across India – the question is the same: what is the value of anger?...
[According to philosopher Amia Srinivasan, anger] better enables victims to make sense of their oppression by heightening their emotions and allowing them to focus on specific features of their victimisation. Victims of injustice or circumstance are often told by their oppressors to blame themselves... Anger supplies those who are wronged or slighted with the resilience to say: ‘No! It is not my fault.’ ... For instance, victims of domestic abuse, through spontaneous anger, articulate publicly the extent of violation and pain they experience at the hands of their abusers. Thunberg’s angry speech reminds us of the extent to which we are actively, presently complicit in the persistence of climate change...
Anger can motivate people, too. Malcolm X’s anger found voice in his call for violent self-defence and active resistance towards both the institutionally racist police force and the tacitly racist American middle class.... Regardless of how one assesses the moral legitimacy of Malcolm X’s methods, his radical activism reshaped public discourse... Moreover, sustaining a social movement is difficult... Attending marches and protests could be costly. The prospects of being imprisoned or persecuted are daunting. Against these obstacles, anger rallies people together – it transforms public, societal causes into intimate, personal reasons that you care about and are devoted to. By providing the individual with the instinctive justification to keep believing and carrying on, anger spurs and sustains action, even if the odds of succeeding are slim…
But anger also has its critics. Anger is an overriding emotion – it is, by its vindictive and impulsive nature, uncontrollable and blinding. It wages war against cool and steady consideration of all reasons in decision making, by amplifying disproportionately our thirst for what we take to be justice. At its worst, anger is what propels terrorist ideology and mass violence, committed by psychopathic individuals to exact revenge and attain justice under their ideological conceptions...
So anger is clearly a double-edged sword. The question becomes: how should we weigh up the usefulness and appropriateness of anger, against its potentially deleterious effects?
1) Which of the following is NOT given as an impact of anger?
(1) Anger can help victims of domestic abuse to fight against and escape from the perpetrators.
(2) Anger can enable people to actively resist injustice.
(3) Anger can sometimes isolate rightful activists and their cause.
(4) Anger, at its worst, can lead to the slaughter of the innocent.
Solution
In this passage, the author looks at the merits and demerits of anger. This specific question is a Direct Multiple question, where we need to validate each option with the passage.
Option (1) is partially given in the passage. The author and Amia Srinivasan state that anger can help victims to fight back against their oppressors. However, the option speaks about escaping from the perpetrators. This part (escape from the perpetrators) makes the option incorrect.
Option (2) is mentioned in the fourth paragraph, where the author speaks about people supporting Malcolm X's anti-racist movement because of anger. The author also explains how anger helps similar movements by rallying and motivating people. Therefore, we can eliminate this option.
Option (3) is mentioned in the first paragraph, where Greta Thunberg may have lost out support because of her angry and aggressive speech, and hence, we can eliminate this option as well.
Option (4) is also given in the passage as the author discusses the issues with anger – it can lead to terrorism and mass violence. Therefore, we can eliminate this option as well, and select option (1) as the correct choice.
Answer: (1) Anger can help victims of domestic abuse to fight against and escape from the perpetrators.
2) What is a potential issue with Thunberg’s speech?
(1) It criticised many people, and they were put off because of her aggression.
(2) It alienated and excluded some people.
(3) People saw her as too aggressive, thereby reducing her supporters.
(4) There is nothing wrong with her anger, it is at least partially justified.
Solution
This is a Direct Single question, which we can solve after reading the first paragraph. The author tells us that Thunberg's speech was criticised by many for Thunberg’s bellicosity, which allegedly put off potential sympathisers to the movement. People who may have sympathised with Thunberg's cause thought her speech was angry and aggressive (bellicosity means aggressiveness).
This is mentioned in option (3). Option (2) has part of the reason, but is not explained as well as option (3), and hence, we can eliminate this option.
Option (1) is factually incorrect, as the people being criticised were the UN members, not the sympathisers. Her sympathisers need not be only UN officials or world leaders who were part of UN meetings. Therefore, we can eliminate this option.
Option (4) is factually incorrect, as the author has explained the issue with her angry speech. Thus, we can eliminate this option as well and select option (3) as the correct choice.
Answer: (3) People saw her as too aggressive, thereby reducing her supporters.
3) What is the merit of anger according to Amia Srinivasan?
(1) Anger can motivate people to fight against injustice.
(2) It is helping people to take on global challenges such as climate change.
(3) Anger helps victims to stand up against abuse or oppression.
(4) Anger rallies people together to fight against obstacles.
Solution
This is a Direct Single question, and we can find the answer in the third paragraph. Srinivasan tells us that anger better enables victims to make sense of their oppression, enabling them to face their oppressors. This is mentioned in option (3).
Option (1) is not mentioned by Amia Srinivasan, it is mentioned in the next paragraph related to Malcolm X's movement. Option (4) also seems to be about this, as it mentions people rallying together, which is relevant to movements opposing injustice.
Option (2), though mentioned in the same paragraph, is not mentioned by Srinivasan. Therefore, we can eliminate all these options and select option (3) as the correct choice.
Answer: (3) Anger helps victims to stand up against abuse or oppression.
4) What does the author mean by “anger is a double-edged sword”?
(1) We must use anger wisely, to avoid harm.
(2) Anger can help victims as well as their oppressors.
(3) Like in the case of Thunberg, anger can result in both support and criticism.
(4) Anger can be either useful or harmful.
Solution
This is a meaning question. A double-edged sword is a metaphorical phrase which is used to describe something which has both positives and negatives. This is mentioned in option (4), which captures the meaning, and hence, is the correct choice.
Option (1) is more of an inference based on this meaning (using anger wisely), and hence can be eliminated as we should choose an option which has the general meaning.
Option (2) is neither the meaning, nor mentioned in the passage. Thus, we can eliminate this option.
Option (3) is about a specific example, not the meaning of this metaphor, and can also be eliminated.
Thus, option (4) is the correct choice.
Answer: (4) Anger can be either useful or harmful.
Back
