Free GMAT SECTION 3: VERBAL ABILITY Exam Braindumps (page: 13)

Unlike the United States with its generalissimo politicians - Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower- the ‘martial arts’ have been conspicuously absent from Canadian politics. The exception to the rule is former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who became the first Canadian leader to bring a gunslinger ethos to Canadian politics. Trudeau introduced Canada to the refined art of single combat; it was the politics of “doing it my way”. Single-combat confrontation implied much more than the renegade in power did, and far less than the tricks of William Lyon Mackenzie King, prime minister intermittently between 1921 and 1948.
Trudeau’s unique background prepared him for the role of authoritarian leader he would assume later in life. Born on October 18, 1919, Trudeau lived in French-speaking Montreal, but heard English at home from his mother, making it easy for the young politician to appeal to all sectors of Canada, a bilingual country. As a young man, he walked and cycled through Europe, finding himself on occasion on the wrong side of the bars in foreign jails. By 1940, Trudeau entered the law faculty at the University of Montreal. As a student he enlisted in the Canadian Officers Training Corps, where he was given a commission as a lieutenant, a rank he held until his retirement in 1947. Trudeau, a renowned sportsman, held a brown belt in karate, knew how to skin dive and could descend 150 feet off a cliff with ease. He continued performing flamboyant physical feats even in later life as Canada’s fifteenth prime minister, astounding Canadians with his prowess. The public’s adoration made it possible for him to practice his personal brand of ‘do it my way’ politics, initiating profound and long-lasting changes to his country.
Other leaders would never have undertaken to deal with such taboo issues as divorce, abortion and homosexuality– matters likely to infuriate conservative Canada from coast to coast. Even the powerful Mackenzie King dared not touch any of the three, though Trudeau tackled them together in an omnibus bill as Minister of Justice under Lester B. Pearson. His reason for loosening legislation on these issues was, as he put poetically put it, "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." The myths-makers have it that this was Trudeau's first deliberate ‘gun slinging’ move, performed with the ultimate goal of attaining national leadership. Contrary to popular belief, Trudeau had no leadership aspirations at the time; all he had was a passion for combat that eclipsed other religious considerations. Trudeau instigated far-reaching changes in legislation governing divorce, abortion and homosexuality that have had a major impact on Canada, shaping the country into what it is today.

The author of the passage mentions Trudeau’s accomplishments in sports primarily in order to

Unlike the United States with its generalissimo politicians - Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower- the ‘martial arts’ have been conspicuously absent from Canadian politics. The exception to the rule is former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who became the first Canadian leader to bring a gunslinger ethos to Canadian politics. Trudeau introduced Canada to the refined art of single combat; it was the politics of “doing it my way”. Single-combat confrontation implied much more than the renegade in power did, and far less than the tricks of William Lyon Mackenzie King, prime minister intermittently between 1921 and 1948.
Trudeau’s unique background prepared him for the role of authoritarian leader he would assume later in life. Born on October 18, 1919, Trudeau lived in French-speaking Montreal, but heard English at home from his mother, making it easy for the young politician to appeal to all sectors of Canada, a bilingual country. As a young man, he walked and cycled through Europe, finding himself on occasion on the wrong side of the bars in foreign jails. By 1940, Trudeau entered the law faculty at the University of Montreal. As a student he enlisted in the Canadian Officers Training Corps, where he was given a commission as a lieutenant, a rank he held until his retirement in 1947. Trudeau, a renowned sportsman, held a brown belt in karate, knew how to skin dive and could descend 150 feet off a cliff with ease. He continued performing flamboyant physical feats even in later life as Canada’s fifteenth prime minister, astounding Canadians with his prowess. The public’s adoration made it possible for him to practice his personal brand of ‘do it my way’ politics, initiating profound and long-lasting changes to his country.
Other leaders would never have undertaken to deal with such taboo issues as divorce, abortion and homosexuality– matters likely to infuriate conservative Canada from coast to coast. Even the powerful Mackenzie King dared not touch any of the three, though Trudeau tackled them together in an omnibus bill as Minister of Justice under Lester B. Pearson. His reason for loosening legislation on these issues was, as he put poetically put it, "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." The myths-makers have it that this was Trudeau's first deliberate ‘gun slinging’ move, performed with the ultimate goal of attaining national leadership. Contrary to popular belief, Trudeau had no leadership aspirations at the time; all he had was a passion for combat that eclipsed other religious considerations. Trudeau instigated far-reaching changes in legislation governing divorce, abortion and homosexuality that have had a major impact on Canada, shaping the country into what it is today.

The quotation "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation," is most probably used to

Art is visible. However, everything one sees is filtered through certain conditions, some of them historical, and others, natural. The historical conditions include the material, which is used — oil, colors, and the canvas; second, a certain style, i.e., a system of rules by which things visible are submitted a priori. There can be a general style, for example, the style of Impressionism, or a particular style, for example, the individual ways in which two painters, both impressionists, paint. The natural conditions include certain unchanging psychological laws of sight, for instance, the effects of colors or optical illusions.
The conditions of art are nothing but a particular way of interpreting reality. To understand this, one can examine the difference between the classical Greek and the classical Egyptian styles. For the Greeks, the reality of the visible was given by the perspective and the situation in which the object appears; for that reason, they presented a person in his individual movements. For the Egyptians, however, this was only the appearance of a transitory moment, which, according to their beliefs, was not real. Therefore, the Egyptians searched for the permanent essence and the typical character in their depiction of an object. For the Egyptians, Greek art was an illusion; for the Greeks, on the other hand, Egyptian art was unrealistic constructivism.
The way in which reality appears in art must not be regarded on its own. It is affected by many other systems of recognizing reality, including the political, religious, economic, intellectual, and social — in short, all the phenomena of human life. Moreover, art is always of a certain epoch, with its particular conception of reality.
Thus, when discussing, for example, the art of ancient myth, of medieval Christianity, or that of the technological age, one must be aware that myth, Christianity, or technology was the most salient feature of the epoch.
It is paradoxical to understand art as some kind of copy of the fields of experience connected with it. So, for example, it is meaningless for the work of art as such if one compares the landscape of a painting with the landscape, which served the artist as his model. Even if the artist had tried to make what he painted as similar as possible to the model he used, the landscape which he saw is only the matter from which something completely different emerges since he has submitted its view to the a priori conditions of art: namely to the material used (colors, canvas, etc.), to his style, and even to the fact that he paints on a flat surface. Thus one must contemplate a work of art by itself. Even if it is connected to other fields of experience it nevertheless displays something unique which appears in that piece of art and there alone.

According to the passage, classical Egyptians did not present a person in his individual movements

Art is visible. However, everything one sees is filtered through certain conditions, some of them historical, and others, natural. The historical conditions include the material, which is used — oil, colors, and the canvas; second, a certain style, i.e., a system of rules by which things visible are submitted a priori. There can be a general style, for example, the style of Impressionism, or a particular style, for example, the individual ways in which two painters, both impressionists, paint. The natural conditions include certain unchanging psychological laws of sight, for instance, the effects of colors or optical illusions.
The conditions of art are nothing but a particular way of interpreting reality. To understand this, one can examine the difference between the classical Greek and the classical Egyptian styles. For the Greeks, the reality of the visible was given by the perspective and the situation in which the object appears; for that reason, they presented a person in his individual movements. For the Egyptians, however, this was only the appearance of a transitory moment, which, according to their beliefs, was not real. Therefore, the Egyptians searched for the permanent essence and the typical character in their depiction of an object. For the Egyptians, Greek art was an illusion; for the Greeks, on the other hand, Egyptian art was unrealistic constructivism.
The way in which reality appears in art must not be regarded on its own. It is affected by many other systems of recognizing reality, including the political, religious, economic, intellectual, and social — in short, all the phenomena of human life. Moreover, art is always of a certain epoch, with its particular conception of reality.
Thus, when discussing, for example, the art of ancient myth, of medieval Christianity, or that of the technological age, one must be aware that myth, Christianity, or technology was the most salient feature of the epoch.
It is paradoxical to understand art as some kind of copy of the fields of experience connected with it. So, for example, it is meaningless for the work of art as such if one compares the landscape of a painting with the landscape, which served the artist as his model. Even if the artist had tried to make what he painted as similar as possible to the model he used, the landscape which he saw is only the matter from which something completely different emerges since he has submitted its view to the a priori conditions of art: namely to the material used (colors, canvas, etc.), to his style, and even to the fact that he paints on a flat surface. Thus one must contemplate a work of art by itself. Even if it is connected to other fields of experience it nevertheless displays something unique which appears in that piece of art and there alone.

The author mentions which of the following as one of the conditions through which art is seen?