Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Comprehension:
You may laugh at a hat, but what you are making fun of, in this case, is not the piece of felt or straw, but the shape that men have given it, -- the human caprice whose mould it has assumed. It is strange that so important a fact, and such a simple one too, has not attracted to a greater degree the attention of philosophers. Several have defined man as "an animal which laughs." They might equally well have defined him as an animal which is laughed at; for if any other animal, or some lifeless object, produces the same effect, it is always because of some resemblance to man, of the stamp he gives it or the use he puts it to.
Here I would point out, as a symptom equally worthy of notice, the ABSENCE OF FEELING which usually accompanies laughter. It seems as though the comic could not produce its disturbing effect unless it fell, so to say, on the surface of a soul that is thoroughly calm and unruffled. Indifference is its natural environment, for laughter has no greater foe than emotion. I do not mean that we could not laugh at a person who inspires us with pity, for instance, or evenwith affection, but in such a case we must, for the moment, put our affection out of court and impose silence upon our pity. In a society composed of pure intelligences there would probably be no more tears, though perhaps there would still be laughter; whereas highly emotional souls, in tune and unison with life, in whom every event would be sentimentally prolonged and re-echoed, would neither know nor understand laughter. Try, for a moment, to become interested in everything that is being said and done; act, in imagination, with those who act, and feel with those who feel; in a word, give your sympathy its widest expansion: as though at the touch of a fairy wand you will see the flimsiest of objects assume importance, and a gloomy hue spread over everything. Now step aside, look upon life as a disinterested spectator: many a drama will turn into a comedy. It is enough for us to stop our ears to the sound of music, in a
room where dancing is going on, for the dancers at once to appear ridiculous. How many human actions would stand a similar test? Should we not see many of them suddenly pass from grave to gay, on isolating them from the accompanying music of sentiment? To produce the whole of its effect, then, the comic demands something like a momentary anesthesia of the heart. Its appeal is to intelligence, pure and simple.
What does the author BEST mean when they say, “it seems as though the comic could not produce its disturbing effect unless it fell, so to say, on the surface of a soul that is
thoroughly calm and unruffled?”
Through the line, the author is essentially saying that a comic can have its effect only on a calm person, as in a person who is not himself meddled by the problem at hand. (It would be difficult to make a person laugh at a phone falling off a building when it is his phone. )
Looking at the options:
Option A: It is not that he wants them to be unaware but unaffected; this is inaccurate.
Option B: This is precisely what the author is trying to convey not only from this particular line but from the entire penultimate paragraph. Only when a would is unruffled, which is unaffected or detached, can it fully let the comic do its work.
Option C: It is not about actually relaxed people or edgy or disturbing things; this can be easily eliminated.
Option D: This comes close, but the idea of an unsettling tone is not accurate. The disturbing effect is not about the joke itself being dark or unsettling.
Option E: This is also unrelated to what the author is trying to say.
Therefore, Option B is the correct answer.
Create a FREE account and get: