Comparing and Contrasting the Language and Rhetoric of Paired Passages - PSAT Critical Reading
Card 0 of 4
Passage #1
Adapted from "On War" by James Boswell (1777)
When I saw workingmen engaged with grave assiduity in fashioning weapons of death, I was struck with wonder at the shortsightedness of human beings, who were soberly preparing the instruments of destruction of their own species. I have since found upon a closer study of man, that my wonder might have been spared. The views of most individuals are limited to their own happiness, and the workmen whom I beheld so busy in the arsenal of Venice saw nothing but what was good in the labor for which they received such wages as procured them the comforts of life. That their immediate satisfaction was not hindered by a view of the remote consequential and contingent evils for which they were responsible would not surprise one who has had seen too much of the world. We must have the telescope of philosophy to make us perceive distant ills; further, we know that there are individuals of our species to whom the immediate misery of others is nothing in comparison with their own advantage—for we know that in every age there have been found men very willing to perform the office of executioner.
Passage #2
Adapted from "What is Patriotism?" by Max Eastman (1915)
With proper recognition of the possible variation of individuals, we can say that patriotism is one of these unalterable facts of man's nature. A talent for fighting solidarity with a group is a part of the instinct of human beings. It is composed of two tendencies that are laid down in his nervous system when he is born called pugnacity and gregariousness, or group-loyalty. All men and most animals are pugnacious. They love to fight. Everybody loves to fight. Some people get all the fighting they want at the breakfast table, and other people have to carry it out in the law courts or the battlefield, where it makes more noise. \[Theodore\] Roosevelt loves to charge up San Juan Hill, and then he loves to prosecute for libel anybody that says he didn't charge up San Juan Hill. War people fight for war and peace people fight for peace. When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.
It is far better though that we should conquer our instinct to fight and put faith in reason. It may seem gigantic; but it is by no means a utopian undertaking to unite the whole world of nations in such a federation. For all the organic interests of men, except their sheer love of patriotic fighting itself, are against the perpetual recurrence of international war. War and the mere joy of existence are incompatible. War makes it impossible to live, and it makes it impossible even to die for a noble purpose. Let men but understand themselves, and the mechanism of their emotions by which they are brought into this perennial catastrophe, and they will be ready enough to take gigantic measures to prevent it.
Passage 2 is more in tone and syntax than Passage 1.
Passage #1
Adapted from "On War" by James Boswell (1777)
When I saw workingmen engaged with grave assiduity in fashioning weapons of death, I was struck with wonder at the shortsightedness of human beings, who were soberly preparing the instruments of destruction of their own species. I have since found upon a closer study of man, that my wonder might have been spared. The views of most individuals are limited to their own happiness, and the workmen whom I beheld so busy in the arsenal of Venice saw nothing but what was good in the labor for which they received such wages as procured them the comforts of life. That their immediate satisfaction was not hindered by a view of the remote consequential and contingent evils for which they were responsible would not surprise one who has had seen too much of the world. We must have the telescope of philosophy to make us perceive distant ills; further, we know that there are individuals of our species to whom the immediate misery of others is nothing in comparison with their own advantage—for we know that in every age there have been found men very willing to perform the office of executioner.
Passage #2
Adapted from "What is Patriotism?" by Max Eastman (1915)
With proper recognition of the possible variation of individuals, we can say that patriotism is one of these unalterable facts of man's nature. A talent for fighting solidarity with a group is a part of the instinct of human beings. It is composed of two tendencies that are laid down in his nervous system when he is born called pugnacity and gregariousness, or group-loyalty. All men and most animals are pugnacious. They love to fight. Everybody loves to fight. Some people get all the fighting they want at the breakfast table, and other people have to carry it out in the law courts or the battlefield, where it makes more noise. \[Theodore\] Roosevelt loves to charge up San Juan Hill, and then he loves to prosecute for libel anybody that says he didn't charge up San Juan Hill. War people fight for war and peace people fight for peace. When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.
It is far better though that we should conquer our instinct to fight and put faith in reason. It may seem gigantic; but it is by no means a utopian undertaking to unite the whole world of nations in such a federation. For all the organic interests of men, except their sheer love of patriotic fighting itself, are against the perpetual recurrence of international war. War and the mere joy of existence are incompatible. War makes it impossible to live, and it makes it impossible even to die for a noble purpose. Let men but understand themselves, and the mechanism of their emotions by which they are brought into this perennial catastrophe, and they will be ready enough to take gigantic measures to prevent it.
Passage 2 is more in tone and syntax than Passage 1.
Tap to see back →
The primary difference between Passage 2 and Passage 1 in terms of tone is that Passage 2 is more informal than Passage 1. Neither passage could rightly be called "restrained" or "moderate" given the strength of feeling each author displays. Similarly, both passages look back on the past as a part of an ongoing problem, and therefore would not be "nostalgic" in tone. Both passages are similarly "inflexible" because the authors clearly feel that flexibility on the topics that they are discussing is wrong. Passage 2 differentiates itself as more informal in the conclusion to its first paragraph when the author states, “When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.” This momentary shift to the first-person perspective, as well as the actual content of the sentence, is a good deal less formal than the language of the first passage.
The primary difference between Passage 2 and Passage 1 in terms of tone is that Passage 2 is more informal than Passage 1. Neither passage could rightly be called "restrained" or "moderate" given the strength of feeling each author displays. Similarly, both passages look back on the past as a part of an ongoing problem, and therefore would not be "nostalgic" in tone. Both passages are similarly "inflexible" because the authors clearly feel that flexibility on the topics that they are discussing is wrong. Passage 2 differentiates itself as more informal in the conclusion to its first paragraph when the author states, “When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.” This momentary shift to the first-person perspective, as well as the actual content of the sentence, is a good deal less formal than the language of the first passage.
Passage #1
Adapted from "On War" by James Boswell (1777)
When I saw workingmen engaged with grave assiduity in fashioning weapons of death, I was struck with wonder at the shortsightedness of human beings, who were soberly preparing the instruments of destruction of their own species. I have since found upon a closer study of man, that my wonder might have been spared. The views of most individuals are limited to their own happiness, and the workmen whom I beheld so busy in the arsenal of Venice saw nothing but what was good in the labor for which they received such wages as procured them the comforts of life. That their immediate satisfaction was not hindered by a view of the remote consequential and contingent evils for which they were responsible would not surprise one who has had seen too much of the world. We must have the telescope of philosophy to make us perceive distant ills; further, we know that there are individuals of our species to whom the immediate misery of others is nothing in comparison with their own advantage—for we know that in every age there have been found men very willing to perform the office of executioner.
Passage #2
Adapted from "What is Patriotism?" by Max Eastman (1915)
With proper recognition of the possible variation of individuals, we can say that patriotism is one of these unalterable facts of man's nature. A talent for fighting solidarity with a group is a part of the instinct of human beings. It is composed of two tendencies that are laid down in his nervous system when he is born called pugnacity and gregariousness, or group-loyalty. All men and most animals are pugnacious. They love to fight. Everybody loves to fight. Some people get all the fighting they want at the breakfast table, and other people have to carry it out in the law courts or the battlefield, where it makes more noise. \[Theodore\] Roosevelt loves to charge up San Juan Hill, and then he loves to prosecute for libel anybody that says he didn't charge up San Juan Hill. War people fight for war and peace people fight for peace. When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.
It is far better though that we should conquer our instinct to fight and put faith in reason. It may seem gigantic; but it is by no means a utopian undertaking to unite the whole world of nations in such a federation. For all the organic interests of men, except their sheer love of patriotic fighting itself, are against the perpetual recurrence of international war. War and the mere joy of existence are incompatible. War makes it impossible to live, and it makes it impossible even to die for a noble purpose. Let men but understand themselves, and the mechanism of their emotions by which they are brought into this perennial catastrophe, and they will be ready enough to take gigantic measures to prevent it.
Passage 2 is more in tone and syntax than Passage 1.
Passage #1
Adapted from "On War" by James Boswell (1777)
When I saw workingmen engaged with grave assiduity in fashioning weapons of death, I was struck with wonder at the shortsightedness of human beings, who were soberly preparing the instruments of destruction of their own species. I have since found upon a closer study of man, that my wonder might have been spared. The views of most individuals are limited to their own happiness, and the workmen whom I beheld so busy in the arsenal of Venice saw nothing but what was good in the labor for which they received such wages as procured them the comforts of life. That their immediate satisfaction was not hindered by a view of the remote consequential and contingent evils for which they were responsible would not surprise one who has had seen too much of the world. We must have the telescope of philosophy to make us perceive distant ills; further, we know that there are individuals of our species to whom the immediate misery of others is nothing in comparison with their own advantage—for we know that in every age there have been found men very willing to perform the office of executioner.
Passage #2
Adapted from "What is Patriotism?" by Max Eastman (1915)
With proper recognition of the possible variation of individuals, we can say that patriotism is one of these unalterable facts of man's nature. A talent for fighting solidarity with a group is a part of the instinct of human beings. It is composed of two tendencies that are laid down in his nervous system when he is born called pugnacity and gregariousness, or group-loyalty. All men and most animals are pugnacious. They love to fight. Everybody loves to fight. Some people get all the fighting they want at the breakfast table, and other people have to carry it out in the law courts or the battlefield, where it makes more noise. \[Theodore\] Roosevelt loves to charge up San Juan Hill, and then he loves to prosecute for libel anybody that says he didn't charge up San Juan Hill. War people fight for war and peace people fight for peace. When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.
It is far better though that we should conquer our instinct to fight and put faith in reason. It may seem gigantic; but it is by no means a utopian undertaking to unite the whole world of nations in such a federation. For all the organic interests of men, except their sheer love of patriotic fighting itself, are against the perpetual recurrence of international war. War and the mere joy of existence are incompatible. War makes it impossible to live, and it makes it impossible even to die for a noble purpose. Let men but understand themselves, and the mechanism of their emotions by which they are brought into this perennial catastrophe, and they will be ready enough to take gigantic measures to prevent it.
Passage 2 is more in tone and syntax than Passage 1.
Tap to see back →
The primary difference between Passage 2 and Passage 1 in terms of tone is that Passage 2 is more informal than Passage 1. Neither passage could rightly be called "restrained" or "moderate" given the strength of feeling each author displays. Similarly, both passages look back on the past as a part of an ongoing problem, and therefore would not be "nostalgic" in tone. Both passages are similarly "inflexible" because the authors clearly feel that flexibility on the topics that they are discussing is wrong. Passage 2 differentiates itself as more informal in the conclusion to its first paragraph when the author states, “When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.” This momentary shift to the first-person perspective, as well as the actual content of the sentence, is a good deal less formal than the language of the first passage.
The primary difference between Passage 2 and Passage 1 in terms of tone is that Passage 2 is more informal than Passage 1. Neither passage could rightly be called "restrained" or "moderate" given the strength of feeling each author displays. Similarly, both passages look back on the past as a part of an ongoing problem, and therefore would not be "nostalgic" in tone. Both passages are similarly "inflexible" because the authors clearly feel that flexibility on the topics that they are discussing is wrong. Passage 2 differentiates itself as more informal in the conclusion to its first paragraph when the author states, “When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.” This momentary shift to the first-person perspective, as well as the actual content of the sentence, is a good deal less formal than the language of the first passage.
Passage #1
Adapted from "On War" by James Boswell (1777)
When I saw workingmen engaged with grave assiduity in fashioning weapons of death, I was struck with wonder at the shortsightedness of human beings, who were soberly preparing the instruments of destruction of their own species. I have since found upon a closer study of man, that my wonder might have been spared. The views of most individuals are limited to their own happiness, and the workmen whom I beheld so busy in the arsenal of Venice saw nothing but what was good in the labor for which they received such wages as procured them the comforts of life. That their immediate satisfaction was not hindered by a view of the remote consequential and contingent evils for which they were responsible would not surprise one who has had seen too much of the world. We must have the telescope of philosophy to make us perceive distant ills; further, we know that there are individuals of our species to whom the immediate misery of others is nothing in comparison with their own advantage—for we know that in every age there have been found men very willing to perform the office of executioner.
Passage #2
Adapted from "What is Patriotism?" by Max Eastman (1915)
With proper recognition of the possible variation of individuals, we can say that patriotism is one of these unalterable facts of man's nature. A talent for fighting solidarity with a group is a part of the instinct of human beings. It is composed of two tendencies that are laid down in his nervous system when he is born called pugnacity and gregariousness, or group-loyalty. All men and most animals are pugnacious. They love to fight. Everybody loves to fight. Some people get all the fighting they want at the breakfast table, and other people have to carry it out in the law courts or the battlefield, where it makes more noise. \[Theodore\] Roosevelt loves to charge up San Juan Hill, and then he loves to prosecute for libel anybody that says he didn't charge up San Juan Hill. War people fight for war and peace people fight for peace. When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.
It is far better though that we should conquer our instinct to fight and put faith in reason. It may seem gigantic; but it is by no means a utopian undertaking to unite the whole world of nations in such a federation. For all the organic interests of men, except their sheer love of patriotic fighting itself, are against the perpetual recurrence of international war. War and the mere joy of existence are incompatible. War makes it impossible to live, and it makes it impossible even to die for a noble purpose. Let men but understand themselves, and the mechanism of their emotions by which they are brought into this perennial catastrophe, and they will be ready enough to take gigantic measures to prevent it.
Passage 2 is more in tone and syntax than Passage 1.
Passage #1
Adapted from "On War" by James Boswell (1777)
When I saw workingmen engaged with grave assiduity in fashioning weapons of death, I was struck with wonder at the shortsightedness of human beings, who were soberly preparing the instruments of destruction of their own species. I have since found upon a closer study of man, that my wonder might have been spared. The views of most individuals are limited to their own happiness, and the workmen whom I beheld so busy in the arsenal of Venice saw nothing but what was good in the labor for which they received such wages as procured them the comforts of life. That their immediate satisfaction was not hindered by a view of the remote consequential and contingent evils for which they were responsible would not surprise one who has had seen too much of the world. We must have the telescope of philosophy to make us perceive distant ills; further, we know that there are individuals of our species to whom the immediate misery of others is nothing in comparison with their own advantage—for we know that in every age there have been found men very willing to perform the office of executioner.
Passage #2
Adapted from "What is Patriotism?" by Max Eastman (1915)
With proper recognition of the possible variation of individuals, we can say that patriotism is one of these unalterable facts of man's nature. A talent for fighting solidarity with a group is a part of the instinct of human beings. It is composed of two tendencies that are laid down in his nervous system when he is born called pugnacity and gregariousness, or group-loyalty. All men and most animals are pugnacious. They love to fight. Everybody loves to fight. Some people get all the fighting they want at the breakfast table, and other people have to carry it out in the law courts or the battlefield, where it makes more noise. \[Theodore\] Roosevelt loves to charge up San Juan Hill, and then he loves to prosecute for libel anybody that says he didn't charge up San Juan Hill. War people fight for war and peace people fight for peace. When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.
It is far better though that we should conquer our instinct to fight and put faith in reason. It may seem gigantic; but it is by no means a utopian undertaking to unite the whole world of nations in such a federation. For all the organic interests of men, except their sheer love of patriotic fighting itself, are against the perpetual recurrence of international war. War and the mere joy of existence are incompatible. War makes it impossible to live, and it makes it impossible even to die for a noble purpose. Let men but understand themselves, and the mechanism of their emotions by which they are brought into this perennial catastrophe, and they will be ready enough to take gigantic measures to prevent it.
Passage 2 is more in tone and syntax than Passage 1.
Tap to see back →
The primary difference between Passage 2 and Passage 1 in terms of tone is that Passage 2 is more informal than Passage 1. Neither passage could rightly be called "restrained" or "moderate" given the strength of feeling each author displays. Similarly, both passages look back on the past as a part of an ongoing problem, and therefore would not be "nostalgic" in tone. Both passages are similarly "inflexible" because the authors clearly feel that flexibility on the topics that they are discussing is wrong. Passage 2 differentiates itself as more informal in the conclusion to its first paragraph when the author states, “When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.” This momentary shift to the first-person perspective, as well as the actual content of the sentence, is a good deal less formal than the language of the first passage.
The primary difference between Passage 2 and Passage 1 in terms of tone is that Passage 2 is more informal than Passage 1. Neither passage could rightly be called "restrained" or "moderate" given the strength of feeling each author displays. Similarly, both passages look back on the past as a part of an ongoing problem, and therefore would not be "nostalgic" in tone. Both passages are similarly "inflexible" because the authors clearly feel that flexibility on the topics that they are discussing is wrong. Passage 2 differentiates itself as more informal in the conclusion to its first paragraph when the author states, “When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.” This momentary shift to the first-person perspective, as well as the actual content of the sentence, is a good deal less formal than the language of the first passage.
Passage #1
Adapted from "On War" by James Boswell (1777)
When I saw workingmen engaged with grave assiduity in fashioning weapons of death, I was struck with wonder at the shortsightedness of human beings, who were soberly preparing the instruments of destruction of their own species. I have since found upon a closer study of man, that my wonder might have been spared. The views of most individuals are limited to their own happiness, and the workmen whom I beheld so busy in the arsenal of Venice saw nothing but what was good in the labor for which they received such wages as procured them the comforts of life. That their immediate satisfaction was not hindered by a view of the remote consequential and contingent evils for which they were responsible would not surprise one who has had seen too much of the world. We must have the telescope of philosophy to make us perceive distant ills; further, we know that there are individuals of our species to whom the immediate misery of others is nothing in comparison with their own advantage—for we know that in every age there have been found men very willing to perform the office of executioner.
Passage #2
Adapted from "What is Patriotism?" by Max Eastman (1915)
With proper recognition of the possible variation of individuals, we can say that patriotism is one of these unalterable facts of man's nature. A talent for fighting solidarity with a group is a part of the instinct of human beings. It is composed of two tendencies that are laid down in his nervous system when he is born called pugnacity and gregariousness, or group-loyalty. All men and most animals are pugnacious. They love to fight. Everybody loves to fight. Some people get all the fighting they want at the breakfast table, and other people have to carry it out in the law courts or the battlefield, where it makes more noise. \[Theodore\] Roosevelt loves to charge up San Juan Hill, and then he loves to prosecute for libel anybody that says he didn't charge up San Juan Hill. War people fight for war and peace people fight for peace. When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.
It is far better though that we should conquer our instinct to fight and put faith in reason. It may seem gigantic; but it is by no means a utopian undertaking to unite the whole world of nations in such a federation. For all the organic interests of men, except their sheer love of patriotic fighting itself, are against the perpetual recurrence of international war. War and the mere joy of existence are incompatible. War makes it impossible to live, and it makes it impossible even to die for a noble purpose. Let men but understand themselves, and the mechanism of their emotions by which they are brought into this perennial catastrophe, and they will be ready enough to take gigantic measures to prevent it.
Passage 2 is more in tone and syntax than Passage 1.
Passage #1
Adapted from "On War" by James Boswell (1777)
When I saw workingmen engaged with grave assiduity in fashioning weapons of death, I was struck with wonder at the shortsightedness of human beings, who were soberly preparing the instruments of destruction of their own species. I have since found upon a closer study of man, that my wonder might have been spared. The views of most individuals are limited to their own happiness, and the workmen whom I beheld so busy in the arsenal of Venice saw nothing but what was good in the labor for which they received such wages as procured them the comforts of life. That their immediate satisfaction was not hindered by a view of the remote consequential and contingent evils for which they were responsible would not surprise one who has had seen too much of the world. We must have the telescope of philosophy to make us perceive distant ills; further, we know that there are individuals of our species to whom the immediate misery of others is nothing in comparison with their own advantage—for we know that in every age there have been found men very willing to perform the office of executioner.
Passage #2
Adapted from "What is Patriotism?" by Max Eastman (1915)
With proper recognition of the possible variation of individuals, we can say that patriotism is one of these unalterable facts of man's nature. A talent for fighting solidarity with a group is a part of the instinct of human beings. It is composed of two tendencies that are laid down in his nervous system when he is born called pugnacity and gregariousness, or group-loyalty. All men and most animals are pugnacious. They love to fight. Everybody loves to fight. Some people get all the fighting they want at the breakfast table, and other people have to carry it out in the law courts or the battlefield, where it makes more noise. \[Theodore\] Roosevelt loves to charge up San Juan Hill, and then he loves to prosecute for libel anybody that says he didn't charge up San Juan Hill. War people fight for war and peace people fight for peace. When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.
It is far better though that we should conquer our instinct to fight and put faith in reason. It may seem gigantic; but it is by no means a utopian undertaking to unite the whole world of nations in such a federation. For all the organic interests of men, except their sheer love of patriotic fighting itself, are against the perpetual recurrence of international war. War and the mere joy of existence are incompatible. War makes it impossible to live, and it makes it impossible even to die for a noble purpose. Let men but understand themselves, and the mechanism of their emotions by which they are brought into this perennial catastrophe, and they will be ready enough to take gigantic measures to prevent it.
Passage 2 is more in tone and syntax than Passage 1.
Tap to see back →
The primary difference between Passage 2 and Passage 1 in terms of tone is that Passage 2 is more informal than Passage 1. Neither passage could rightly be called "restrained" or "moderate" given the strength of feeling each author displays. Similarly, both passages look back on the past as a part of an ongoing problem, and therefore would not be "nostalgic" in tone. Both passages are similarly "inflexible" because the authors clearly feel that flexibility on the topics that they are discussing is wrong. Passage 2 differentiates itself as more informal in the conclusion to its first paragraph when the author states, “When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.” This momentary shift to the first-person perspective, as well as the actual content of the sentence, is a good deal less formal than the language of the first passage.
The primary difference between Passage 2 and Passage 1 in terms of tone is that Passage 2 is more informal than Passage 1. Neither passage could rightly be called "restrained" or "moderate" given the strength of feeling each author displays. Similarly, both passages look back on the past as a part of an ongoing problem, and therefore would not be "nostalgic" in tone. Both passages are similarly "inflexible" because the authors clearly feel that flexibility on the topics that they are discussing is wrong. Passage 2 differentiates itself as more informal in the conclusion to its first paragraph when the author states, “When Roosevelt calls the peace people mollycoddles and college sissies, I only want to walk up and smash him.” This momentary shift to the first-person perspective, as well as the actual content of the sentence, is a good deal less formal than the language of the first passage.