5. The passage suggests that both Waugh and Oakes consider James's novels to have
too much material that is extraneous1 to the solution of the crime.
too little characterization to enable the reader to solve the crime
too few supects to generate suspense
too simple a plot to hold the attention of the reader
too convoluted2 a plot for the reader to understand
6. It can be inferred from the passage that, in the author's view, traditional detective fiction is characterized by
concern for the weaknesses and doubts of the characters
transparent3 devices to advance the plot
the attribution of intuition to the detective
the straightforward4 assignment of culpability5 for the crime
attention to the concepts of morality and responsibility
7. The author characterizes the position of some critics as inverted6 snobbery7 because they hold which one of the following views?
Critics of literature must acknowledge that they are less talented than creators of literature.
Critics should hesitate to disparage8 popular authors
P.D.James's novels should focus less on characters from the English landed gentry9.
Detective fiction should be content to remain an unambitious literary genre10.
P.D. James should be less fastidious about portraying11 violence.
8. Which one of the following quotations12 about literature best exemplifies the familiar attitude mentioned in lines 5-9?
The fantasy and whimsy13 characteristic of this writer's novels qualify them as truly great works of literature.
The greatest work of early English literature happens to be a highly humorous collection of tales.
A truly great work of literature should place demands upon its readers, rather than pert them.
Although many critics are condescending14 about best-selling novels, I would not wish to challenge the opinion of millions of readers
A novel need only satisfy the requirements of its particular genre to be considered a true work of literature.
Many Native Americans view the archaeological excavation15 and museum display of ancestral skeletal remains16 and items buried with them as a spiritual desecration17. A number of legal remedies that either
prohibit or regulate such activities may be available to Native American communities, if they can establish standing18 in such cases. In disinterment cases, courts have traditionally affirmed the standing of three classes of plaintiffs: the deceased's heirs, the owner of the
property on which the grave is located, and parties, including organizations or distant relatives of the deceased, that have a clear interest in the preservation19 of a particular grave. If an archaeologically20 discovered grave is of recent historical origin and associated with
an identifiable Native American community, Native Americans are likely to establish standing in a suit to prevent disinterment of the remains, but in cases where the grave is ancient and located in an area where the community of Native Americans associated with the
grave has not recently lived, they are less likely to be successful in this regard. Indeed, in most cases involving ancient graves, to recognize that Native Americans have standing would represent a significant expansion of common law. In cases where standing can
be achieved, however, common law may provide a basis for some Native American claims against archaeologists and museums.
Property law, for example, can be useful in establishing Native American claims to artifacts that
are retrieved21 in the excavation of ancient graves and can be considered the communal22 property of Native American tribes or communal property of Native American tribes or communal. In Charrier v. Bell, a United States appellate court ruled that the common law doctrine23 of abandonment, which allows the finder
of abandoned property to claim ownership, does not apply to objects buried with the deceased. The court ruled that the practice of burying items with the body of the deceased is not intended as a means of reliquishing ownership to a stranger, and that to
interpret it as such would render a grave subject to despoliation24 either immediately after interment or after removal of the descendants of the deceased from the neighborhood of the cemetery25. This ruling suggests that artifacts excavated26 from Native American
ancestral graves should be returned to representatives of tribal27 groups who can establish standing in such cases.
More generally, United States courts have upheld the distinction between inpidual and communal
property, holding that an inpidual Native American does not have title to communal property owned and held for common use by his or her tribe. As a result, museums cannot assume that they have valid title to cultural property merely because they purchased in
good faith an item that was originally sold in good faith by an inpidual member of a Native American community
