<p>Here are the paired passages:</p>
<p>Passage I is adapted from a 1998 essay. Passage 2. adapted front an 1885 novel, is about a self-made businessman named Lapham. who manufactures house paint. In the passage, Lapham is being interviewed by Bartley, a journalist.</p>
<p>Passage 1</p>
<p>Although I refer to a conifer guide when I'm cross-country skiing, I am still not trustworthy on the difference between a spruce and a fir. But let the smallest piece of commercial-packaging trash appear along the trail and I can give you the species, genus, and phylum every time.
Much of the litter we bring with us into the wilderness is of the mental variety: past a certain point, our minds really cannot grasp places that are completely trash-free. The grape-soda can drawing bees in the middle of a supposedly pristine wilderness campsite provokes our outrage and disgust, of course, But underneath those feelings, and less comfortable to admit, is a small amount of recognition and even relief. The soda can is us, after all. In the nineteenth century, when the cult of the Scenic * had just begun, advertisers (especially in New England) took to plastering giant advertising slogans on the scenery itself. Hikers who reached lofty lookout points in the Adirondacks or the Berkshires would see the words WISIT OAK HALL on a rock face in the prospect before them. (Oak Hall was Boston clothing store.) Even more remarkable is how few of them seem to have complained. </p>
<p>Passage 2</p>
<p>"In lessn six months there wasn't a board-fence, nor a bridge girder, nor a dead wall, nor a ham, nor a face of rock in that whole region that didn't have Lapham's Mineral Paint-Specimen' on it in the three colors we begun by making."
Lapham continued. "I've heard a good deal of talk about that stove-blacking man and the kidney-cure man, because they advertised in that way: and I have read articles about it in the papers; but I dons see where the joke comes in, exactly. So long as the people that own the barns and fences dont object, I dont see what the public has got to do with it. And I never saw anything so very sacred about a big rock, along a river or in a pasture, that it wouldnt do to put mineral paint on it in three colors. I wish some of the people that talk about the landscape, and WRITE about it, had to bust one of them rocks OUT of the landscape with powder, or dig a hole to bury it in, as we used to have to do up on the farm; I guess theyd sing a little different tune about the profanation of scenery. There aint any man enjoys a slightly bit of naturea smooth piece of interval with half a dozen good-sized wine-glass elms in itmore than I do. But I aint a-going to stand up for every big ugly rock I come across, as if we were all a set of dumn Druids. I say the landscape was made for man, and not man for the landscape.
Yes, said Bartley carelessly; it was made for the stove-polish man and the kidney-cure man.
It was made for any man that knows how to use it, Lapham returned, insensible to Bartleys irony.</p>
<p>Here is the question:</p>
<ol>
<li>The "cull of the Scenic" (line 14, Passage 1) is best represented by which of the following in Passage 2?
(A) "Lapham"(line27))
(B) The "people'" (line 31)
(C) The "'people'" (line 36)
(D) "'anyman*"(line40)
(E) The " 'stove-polish man'" (line 48)</li>
</ol>
<p>The answer is (C). I actually did this question correctly, but still want to make sure. I got hanged up between (C) and (D), but chose (C) because it was closer in meaning, (as closer as I felt). Is it just that (C) is better, or is there something wrong with (D) and I didn't notice it? Thanks in advance!</p>
<p>P.S: Sorry I forgot to number the lines.</p>