Quiz On The Areopagitica

The first sentence of the second paragraph is an example of a rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is a figure of speech where a question is asked not to receive an answer, but to make a point or create an effect. In this case, the question is used to emphasize a point or to engage the reader in thinking about the topic being discussed.

The word "garland" in line 24 is best understood to mean "the prize of immortality". This can be inferred from the context of the passage, as a garland is typically a decorative wreath or crown that is given as a reward or honor. In this case, it suggests that the garland symbolizes a reward or prize that grants immortality, emphasizing its significance and value.

The phrase "of knowing good and evil, that is to say, of knowing good by evil" suggests that in order to truly understand or appreciate what is good, one must also have knowledge or experience of what is evil. This implies that good and evil are not only opposites, but also interconnected, and that one's understanding of good is enhanced or deepened through an understanding of evil. Therefore, the correct answer is "we can know good only by knowing evil."

The comment on Spenser in lines 32-34 implies that literature may be a more effective teacher than philosophy. This suggests that literature has the ability to convey moral lessons and teachings in a more impactful way than philosophical discourse. It implies that literature has the power to engage and educate readers on moral values and principles, possibly surpassing the abilities of philosophers in teaching morality.

The passage argues that in order to resist evil, one must have an understanding of it. This implies that without knowledge of evil, it would be difficult to combat it effectively. By understanding the nature of evil, individuals can develop strategies to resist its temptations and avoid falling into its traps. Thus, the central argument of the passage is that in order to resist evil, one must first understand it.

The passage develops its thesis by using ethical argument, extended definition, abstract generalization, and reference to authority. However, it does not rely on a personal anecdote to support its main argument or point.

In the first sentence of the passage, the speaker compares good and evil to plants. This comparison suggests that like plants, good and evil are inherent aspects of the world. Just as plants grow and exist in the natural world, good and evil coexist and manifest in our lives. The comparison also implies that good and evil are interconnected and cannot exist without each other, much like plants rely on sunlight and water to grow.

The argument of lines 25-27 suggests that it is experience, not innocence, which purifies humans. This means that going through various experiences in life, including the experience of guilt and vice, helps individuals grow and become better. Innocence alone is not enough to purify humans, as they need to learn from their experiences and develop a deeper understanding of right and wrong. The argument implies that innocence is lost once a person has experienced evil, indicating that experience is crucial for personal growth and purification.

In lines 22-23, the term "adversary" refers to vice. This means that it is referring to something negative or harmful, possibly an immoral or sinful behavior. The context of the passage suggests that the author is discussing the negative aspects or challenges associated with vice, making it the most appropriate interpretation of "adversary" in this context.

The correct answer is "cloistered" (line 21). The passage discusses the metaphor of a race, with words like "race" (line 23), "garland" (line 24), "run for" (line 24), and "dust" (line 24) all contributing to this metaphor. However, "cloistered" does not fit into this metaphor as it means being secluded or isolated, which does not align with the concept of a race.

The passage is not characterized by the use of colloquial diction. Colloquial diction refers to informal and conversational language, which is not present in the passage. The other options, such as literary allusion, first-person pronouns, metaphor and simile, and balanced compound sentences, may or may not be present in the passage, but colloquial diction is definitely not a characteristic of the passage.

The phrase "trial is by what is contrary" means that humans are tested or challenged through their experience of conflict. It suggests that facing and overcoming conflicts is a way for individuals to grow and develop.

The passage refers to the "bower of earthly bliss" as an example of an evil recognized and resisted. This suggests that the "bower of earthly bliss" is seen as something negative or harmful, and the speaker acknowledges its existence but chooses to resist its allure. The phrase implies that there is a temptation or seduction associated with this "bower," but the speaker is able to recognize its evil nature and actively resist its influence.

The speaker of the passage is described as a dedicated partisan because they show strong support and loyalty towards a particular cause or political party. They are likely to have a biased perspective and advocate for their own beliefs and interests. This is evident in their tone and language used throughout the passage.