GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
It was difficult to tell whether his tirade in fact had
[#permalink]
23 Oct 2017, 14:19
23 Oct 2017, 14:19
1
Expert Reply
16
Bookmarks
00:00
Question Stats:
19% (01:00) correct
80% (01:04) wrong based on 202 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
It was difficult to tell whether his tirade in fact had force of fact, whether his forceful (i) _________ was mere (ii) _________, motivated by malice, or whether it ranked as reportorial (iii) _________ of which the committee ought take notice.
| Blank (i) | Blank (ii) | Blank (iii) |
| (A) fulmination | (D) sophistry | (G) muckraking |
| (B) desecration | (E) boosterism | (H) calumny |
| (C) ululation | (F) aspersion | (I) prattle |
Show: :: OA
Fulmination, aspersion, muckraking.
Practice Questions
Question: 71
Page: 62-63
Question: 71
Page: 62-63
Re: It was difficult to tell whether his tirade in fact had
[#permalink]
06 Nov 2017, 19:14
06 Nov 2017, 19:14
Expert Reply
Explanation
It was difficult to tell whether his tirade in fact had force of fact means that it was difficult tell whether someone’s angry speech (fulmination) was actually true. It is hard to tell whether his speech is “motivated by malice” (that is, “malicious lies,” or aspersion) or “reportorial” information (muckraking “exposing corruption”) that should actually be listened to.
Note that calumny is similar to aspersion and cannot work in the third blank — while the second blank describes negative speech meant to cause harm to others, the third blank describes negative speech that exposes the truth.
Fulmination, aspersion, muckraking.
It was difficult to tell whether his tirade in fact had force of fact means that it was difficult tell whether someone’s angry speech (fulmination) was actually true. It is hard to tell whether his speech is “motivated by malice” (that is, “malicious lies,” or aspersion) or “reportorial” information (muckraking “exposing corruption”) that should actually be listened to.
Note that calumny is similar to aspersion and cannot work in the third blank — while the second blank describes negative speech meant to cause harm to others, the third blank describes negative speech that exposes the truth.
Fulmination, aspersion, muckraking.
Re: It was difficult to tell whether his tirade in fact had
[#permalink]
10 May 2022, 21:13
10 May 2022, 21:13
1
It was difficult to tell whether his tirade in fact had force of fact, whether his forceful (i) _________ was mere (ii) _________, motivated by malice, or whether it ranked as reportorial (iii) _________ of which the committee ought take notice.
Since we are told that he was indulging in a tirade, the word for the first blank is fulmination. A tirade is a long, angry speech of criticism or accusation. A fulmination is an expression of vehement protest.
Now, two opposite choices are suggested for us between the second and third blank by the phrasal structure "whether....or". For the second blank, the phrase "was mere (ii) _________, motivated by malice" suggests that we need a word which is similar in nature to fulminations but of lesser intensity. Therefore, clearly aspersions is the best choice. The word for the third blank should be one that is the opposite of aspersions - a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone's reputation. Therefore, muckraking - the action of searching out and publicizing scandal about famous people - is the best choice.
Since we are told that he was indulging in a tirade, the word for the first blank is fulmination. A tirade is a long, angry speech of criticism or accusation. A fulmination is an expression of vehement protest.
Now, two opposite choices are suggested for us between the second and third blank by the phrasal structure "whether....or". For the second blank, the phrase "was mere (ii) _________, motivated by malice" suggests that we need a word which is similar in nature to fulminations but of lesser intensity. Therefore, clearly aspersions is the best choice. The word for the third blank should be one that is the opposite of aspersions - a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone's reputation. Therefore, muckraking - the action of searching out and publicizing scandal about famous people - is the best choice.
