Answer key

Prepared by: learnloophq@gmail.com

Last edited 11 days ago by Learn LoopHQ.

Chapter: 07. Mullah Nasreddin And The Nail

⁠

Comprehension - Answer Key

A. Answer these questions.

The neighbor’s initial demeanor was opportunistic and cunning. He hoped to take advantage of Mullah Nasreddin’s financial difficulties by buying his house for a “pitiful price.”

The neighbor’s wife feared that Mullah Nasreddin keeping a nail was strange and questioned “What does it mean?” implying suspicion about his intentions.

Before the cow dung, Mullah Nasreddin hung his turban, then a scarf, and later his coat and hat on the nail.

Mullah Nasreddin responded by placing his foot inside the door, preventing the neighbor from shutting it in his face, showing his determination to enter.

While explaining the situation to the council of elders, the neighbor smeared “the few wisps of his once-bristling moustache across his upper lip.”

B. Answer these questions with reference to the context.

“He just wants to be allowed to keep and ‘worship’ his nail from time to time. That’s all.” a. The neighbour says this to his wife. b. The speaker is trying to reassure his wife and downplay the significance of the nail clause so that she will agree to the house purchase. c. The speaker likely does not truly believe what he is saying; he is trying to convince his wife and himself that the clause is harmless because he is eager to get the house at a cheap price. His later frustration shows he knew there was a risk.

“Oh God! You again? I do hope this is the last time!” a. The neighbour is the speaker here. b. The speaker is expressing extreme frustration, annoyance, and desperation. c. Immediately after this exclamation, the listener (Mullah Nasreddin) entered, dragging behind him a sack full of cow dung.

“The mullah simply presented the contract, without uttering a word in his defense.” a. This scene is taking place at an assembly of the wise men (council of elders) in the village, who have been convened to make a ruling on the dispute. b. The mullah didn’t need to utter a word in his defense because the contract itself was his defense. It clearly stated his right to the nail, leaving no room for argument or interpretation against him. c. This silence reveals Mullah Nasreddin’s absolute confidence in the watertight nature of his contract and the cleverness of his plan; he knew the law was on his side.

C. Think and answer.

Mullah Nasreddin’s “unconventional” character is crucial to his success. Because people already perceive him as possibly “mad,” his bizarre request to keep ownership of a nail seems like another eccentricity, making the neighbor underestimate him and agree to the clause. If he were seen as a shrewd businessman, the neighbor might have been more suspicious. His “sage” quality, meanwhile, highlights the deeper wisdom behind his seemingly mad actions, allowing him to devise and execute a flawless plan to reclaim his property.

The escalating humor in the story is incredibly effective because it builds tension and amusement, making Mullah Nasreddin’s plan memorable and impactful. The progression from a relatively harmless turban to a scarf, then a coat, and finally a sack of cow dung creates a sense of escalating absurdity. Each new item pushes the neighbor’s tolerance further, culminating in a disgustingly funny climax that forces him to surrender. This escalation makes the trick unforgettable and highlights the neighbor’s foolishness and Nasreddin’s brilliant wit more dramatically than a simple, less humorous approach would have.

(Student’s answer will vary, but should include justification)

If choosing a different approach: One might argue that a direct negotiation or appealing to the community for help due to the low price would be more ethical and less disruptive. However, this might not have worked against a “crooked man” unwilling to pay a fair price, and Nasreddin might not have made a profit.

If sticking with Nasreddin’s approach: One could argue that Mullah Nasreddin’s approach was the most effective because it used the neighbor’s own greed and signed agreement against him. It was a non-violent, intellectual battle that resulted in not just the return of the house but also a profit, making the neighbor truly learn his lesson without physical harm or prolonged legal battles, which can be costly and uncertain. Given the neighbor’s character, a direct or purely ethical appeal might have failed entirely.

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.