Philosophy/Religion Passage (grammar/writing)
Introduction
This section will apply the DIRECT Method to a CLT Philosophy/Religion passage. Let’s begin with a review of the method. Do you remember what each of the six letters of DIRECT stand for? Test yourself and then check out the spoiler below.
Don’t read the passage first.
Identify important material if there is a stated question.
Read for context.
Examine the structure of the answers.
Choose the answer that best fits the context and, if applicable, the stated question.
Take time to review any questions you’ve flagged as difficult.
The Philosophy/Religion passage will often be taken from an ancient or medieval source–anything from Plato to Thomas Aquinas–though something more recent is also possible. Be prepared to linger over certain sentences to make sure you understand their meaning, since the writing in this passage is unlikely to be modern and easily understood.
DIRECT to the Source: The Philosophy/Religion Passage
In this section, you’ll find a selection from Athanasius’ On the Incarnation. After each paragraph, you’ll find questions tied to the underlined portions in the paragraph. This format does not exactly mimic the format of the CLT, where the entire passage appears on the left and the questions on the right, so be sure to practice with official CLT materials as well.
As, then, he who desires to see God Who by nature is invisible and not to be beheld, may yet perceive and know Him through His works, [1] nevertheless let him who does not see Christ with his understanding at least consider Him in His bodily works and test whether they be of man or God. If they be of man, then let him [2] scoff; if they be of God, let him not mock at things which are no fit subject for scorn, but rather let him recognize the fact and [3] marveling that things divine have been revealed to us by such humble means, that through death deathlessness has been made known to us, and through the Incarnation of the Word the Mind whence all things proceed has been declared, and its Agent and Ordainer, the Word of God Himself. He, indeed, [4] assumed humanity that we might become God. He manifested Himself by means of a body in order that we might perceive the Mind of the unseen Father. He endured shame from men that we might inherit immortality. He Himself was unhurt by this, for He is impassable and incorruptible; but by His own impassibility He kept and healed the suffering men on whose account He thus endured. In short, [5] such and so many are the waves that trying to count them while gazing at the open sea is like trying to number the Savior’s achievements that follow from His Incarnation. One cannot see all the waves with one’s eyes, for when one tries to do so those that are following on baffle one’s senses. Even so, when one wants to take in all the achievements of Christ in the body, [6] they cannot do so, even by reckoning them up, for the things that transcend one’s thought are always more than those one thinks that one has grasped.
1. nevertheless
A. NO CHANGE
B. still
C. for instance
D. so too
The answer is D. This sort of question is known as a “logical coherence” questions. It focuses on the transition from one part of the sentence to the next; a good rule of thumb with these questions is to always look for contrast. Contrast between ideas often stands out more than agreement and therefore is easier to see. If there is contrast, the answer often presents itself quickly, but if there is not contrast, you can typically eliminate at least one and often two or three of the answers.
Is there contrast in this sentence? A key to understanding is the word “as” in the beginning of the sentence. This word typically indicates agreement between parts, so contrast is unlikely, Indeed, the author is making a comparison of similarity between two ways of understanding the unseen God. So we can eliminate not only choice A but also choice B, for “still” is typically a contrast word if used as a transition. Regarding choice D, is the second part of the sentence an example of the first? No: the second part gives a different way to seek to understand the unseen God. “So too” works best following “as” at the sentence’s outset. This is a form of the idiom “just as … so too”; Athanasius has simply left off the “just” at the beginning.
2. scoff;
A. NO CHANGE
B. scoff,
C. scoff and
D. scoff–
The answer is A. When offered (at least) a choice between a semicolon and a common, we need to perform the “Clause Test” and ask whether the two parts of the sentence are a) two complete ideas (independent clauses, which could each stand on their own as sentences) or else b) one complete and one incomplete idea. We can see a parallel structure in the two clauses here, both introduced by “if”; both parts are complete, offering a whole clause with an “if … then” logic. With two independent clauses, we cannot use a comma; this is the grammar error known as the “common splice”. And because the long dash known as the em dash (choice D) acts similarly to a comma, that choice is out as well. In this phrasing, we certainly need some punctuation to avoid a run-on sentence, so choice C can’t work. With two complete clauses, we need to use 1) a semicolon; or 2) a period; or 3) a comma plus a FANBOYS conjunction (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so). The semicolon works well here.
3. marveling
A. NO CHANGE
B. marvel
C. marvels
D. marvelous
The answer is B. Here the author uses parallelism, a structure wherein two similar parts of speech (usually verbs but sometimes prepositions or other forms) line up in a sort of list. With parallelism, the forms must be expressed in a consistent way. If they are verbs, the second (and third, etc.) verb needs to be expressed in the same way as the first one. Athanasius has warned the reader not to mock but rather to recognize “and …” In this case, the next verb needs to be in same form as “recognize”. We’re not looking for “(he/she) marvels” or a continuing form like “marveling”, and certainly not an adjective like “marvelous”. Rather, the structure is, “Let him recognize and marvel.”
A good way to think of think of parallelism is to imagine you were making notes on this sentence in outline form. Athanasius, upon the presumption that the reader finds the things he observes to be from God and not from man, wants the reader to:
- not mock
- recognize
- marvel
Structuring the list of actions this way helps us see more clearly how the verb forms should line up.
4. assumed
A. NO CHANGE
B. associated
C. assigned
D. assented
The answer is A. This is a word choice question, so we need to look at the context: “He, indeed, _____ humanity that we might become God.” Athanasius is referring to the person called “the Word” earlier in the paragraph and later as “Christ”. What did this person do to humanity? Some of the choices don’t even make sense grammatically because they would require additional words, such as a preposition. For example, we wouldn’t say “assented humanity” but rather “assented (agreed) to humanity,” and even that sounds awkward. We also can reject “associated humanity,” because the phrasing would have to be “associated humanity” with something else. Could it be “assigned”? Not here, because if humanity is assigned, it needs to be assigned to something. “Assumed” is best; the idea here is not “assumed” in the sense of taking something to be true but rather in the less commonly used sense of “taking on” something from someone else. An example might be, “To save his friend from suspension, the student assumed the blame for his friend’s action.” This is the idea here. Athanasius is talking about the incarnation, in which, according to Christian theology, God took on the form of humanity in the person of Jesus Christ.
5. such and so many are the waves that trying to count them gazing at the open sea is like trying to number the Savior’s achievements that follow from His Incarnation
A. NO CHANGE
B. such and so many are the Savior’s achievements that follow from His Incarnation that to try to number them is like gazing at the open sea and trying to count the waves
C. the Savior’s achievements are such and so many that trying to count them while gazing at the open sea is like trying to number what follows from His Incarnation
D. His Incarnation and the achievements that follow from are such and so many that trying to count the waves while gazing at the open sea is like trying to number them
The answer is B. With longer quotations, the issue is often sentence structure, in this case, the order of phrases. The sentence contains several phrases; we need to order them in such a way that the meaning is clear. In particular, the author makes a comparison here; he is not suggesting that the reader is actually looking at the open sea and trying to count the waves, but that trying to number the achievements of the Savior is compared with this action. Both actions are essentially impossible because what the person is trying to count is too numerous to be counted.
With this in mind, we eliminate answer choices C and D because, read carefully, they both describe the person doing the “counting” as actually looking at the sea, making that action the focus of the comparison rather than the real focus: numbering the achievements of the Savior. Choice A does something similar, starting out with the “waves” and thereby creating a confusing ordering that is hard to follow and puts the focus where it is not supposed to be. Only choice B starts out with the relevant focus: the Savior’s achievements. This answer then goes on to mention the open sea and the waves in the appropriate place, communicating that these images are introduced for the purposes of comparison.
6. they
A. NO CHANGE
B. you
C. he
D. one
The answer is D. This question is about consistent use of the pronoun. The subject of the sentence is the person who “wants to take in all the achievements of Christ.” How is that person described? With the generic pronoun “one”. If the subject of the sentence had been “he” or “she”, we would want to reuse the same pronoun in continuing the thought. The author also could have spoken in the plural, saying something like, “When people want to understand …” In that case, they would be the correct pronoun, referring back to the plural antecedent people. But since “one” is the initial subject and the sentence is clearly keeping the same subject, we simply choose the same pronoun again.
As we cannot speak adequately about even a part of His [7] work: therefore, it will be better for us not to speak about it as a whole. So we will mention but one thing more, and then leave the whole for you to marvel at. For, indeed, everything about it is marvelous, and wherever a man turns his gaze he sees the Godhead of the Word and is smitten with awe.
7. work; therefore,
A. NO CHANGE
B. work, therefore
C. work, therefore;
D. work, therefore,
The answer is D. The Clause Test is once again our tool as we seek to nail down the proper punctuation here. Do we have two complete thoughts in this sentence, or is one of the clauses dependent (incomplete)? The answer is the latter; the clause “As we cannot speak adequately about a part of His word” could not stand on its own. Therefore, the proper punctuation here is the reverse of the earlier question; in this case we cannot use a semicolon (or a period, for that matter). Choices A and C are eliminated.
Do we need a comma after “therefore”? To answer this question, we need to consider another grammar principle: when a word or phrase is grammatically non-essential to a sentence (that is, if you could take out the word or phrase and the sentence would still be grammatically correct), that word or phrase should be surrounded by commas. We refer to this as the “handlebar rule”; imagine grabbing those commas like handlebars and pulling the word “therefore” out of the sentence. Reading the sentence without “therefore” shows that it is still grammatically correct. We need, therefore, to surround the “therefore” with the commas. (See what we did there?)
The substance of what we have said so far may be summarized as follows. Since the Savior came to dwell among us, not only does idolatry no longer increase, but [8] it is getting less and gradually ceasing to be. Similarly, not only does the wisdom of the Greeks no longer make any progress, but that which used to be is disappearing. And demons, so far from continuing to impose on people by their deceits and oracle-givings and sorceries, are routed by the sign of the cross if they so much as try. On the other hand, [9] since idolatry and everything else that opposes the faith of Christ is daily dwindling and weakening and falling, see, the Savior’s teaching is increasing everywhere! Worship, then, the Savior “Who is above all” and mighty, even God the Word, and condemn those who are being defeated and made to disappear by Him. [10] When the celestial shining orb has come, the crepuscule prevails no longer; even an infinitesimal fraction that may persevere anywhere is repudiated. So also, now that the Divine epiphany of the Word of God has taken place, the darkness of idols prevails no more, and all parts of the world in every direction are enlightened by His teaching.
8. it is getting less and gradually ceasing to be
A. NO CHANGE
B. it is an ever-growing threat
C. it is growing less common but could always resurface
D. it is remaining persistently present
The answer is A. The question concerns the logical relationship between the parts of the sentence. When a writer uses the phrase “not only … but,” there is an intensifying action: the second part should be stronger in intensity than the first. For example, “Not only did the outfielder save a home run with a leaping catch, but she had three hits at the plate and scored twice.” For this reason, we need to understand well the first part of the sentence. The author tells us that idolatry no longer increases, implying it used to increase but now, at the very least, is staying at the same level (and it’s possible that’s it even decreasing slightly). We need to go beyond not increasing. That’s best done by talking about the subject–idolatry–actually decreasing, and the stronger the phrasing, the better. Choices B and D don’t bring this emphasis, and though choice C talks about it “growing less common,” the idea of it resurfacing doesn’t fit with the emphasis of the sentence. The best choice suggests that it is decreasing so much that it has almost completely disappeared.
9. since
A. NO CHANGE
B. while
C. thus
D. until
The answer is B. This transition question returns us to a focus on the logical movement of the sentence. We look for contrast, and, in this case, we find it! “On the one hand,” idolatry and ideas opposed to Christ are decreasing; on the other hand, the teaching of Christ is increasing. But the latter part of the sentence doesn’t say anything like “on the other hand” to supply our contrast word or phrase; therefore, we need to indicate the contrast at the beginning of the sentence, right after “on the other hand.” The only contrast word available is while; all the other choices indicate either logical causality (choices A and C) or else some kind of reference to time (choice D) that is not present in this sentence.
10. Which of the following best matches the tone of the passage?
When the celestial shining orb has come, the crepuscule prevails no longer; even an infinitesimal fraction that may persevere anywhere is repudiated.
A. NO CHANGE
B. When the sun shows its face, darkness doesn’t hang out anymore; it totally peaces out.
C. When the sun has come, darkness prevails no longer; any of it that may be left anywhere is driven away.
D. When the sun, you know, rises, darkness can’t stick around; even the little bit you usually see is gone.
The answer is C. Tone/style questions on the CLT will often ask you to choose language that is appropriately situated between too extremes: too formal and wordy on the one hand, and too informal and casual on the other. Choice A here is a classic example of verbose, overly flowery language. Don’t let the big words fool you; this is not good writing! On the other hand, choice B, in referring to darkness as something that “doesn’t hang out” and “totally peace out” makes Athanasius sound like someone from a TV show! Choice D, although not as blatant as choice B, is still too informal; it’s impossible to imagine a 4th-century writer like Athanasius peppering his writing with the phrase “you know.” Only answer choice C fits the tone and style of the rest of the passage.