Answers to textbook exercises

Prepared by: learnloophq@gmail.com

Last edited 11 days ago by Learn LoopHQ.

Chapter: 07. Mullah Nasreddin And The Nail

⁠

Comprehension

A. Answer these questions.

Who was Mullah Nasreddin? Why was he considered mysterious?

Mullah Nasreddin was a local priest in a small village who lived in extreme poverty. He was considered mysterious because his ways were so unconventional; no one knew whether he was a madman or a sage.

Why was Mullah Nasreddin forced to sell his ancestral house?

Mullah Nasreddin was forced to sell his ancestral house because his debts had accumulated, and his credit had vanished, leaving him with no alternative.

Who wanted to buy the house? How did he get it from the mullah?

Mullah Nasreddin’s neighbour, a crooked man, wanted to buy the house. He got it from the mullah by offering a pitifully low price and agreeing to a peculiar clause in the contract.

What clause did Nasreddin add to the contract?

Nasreddin added a clause to the contract stating that he would be allowed to keep ownership of one specific nail sticking out on the wall of the living room and do whatever he wanted with it.

Why was the neighbour’s wife angry with him?

The neighbour’s wife was angry with him because she believed he was weak and had allowed Mullah Nasreddin to take advantage of them by continuously hanging items on the nail, making the house unbearable.

Why did the neighbour call for a meeting with the council of elders? What ruling did they give?

The neighbour called for a meeting with the council of elders because Mullah Nasreddin had started hanging offensive items, like a sack of cow dung, on the nail, and the neighbour protested that it was “going too far.” The council of elders ruled that Mullah Nasreddin was perfectly entitled to do as he wished with his nail, as there was nothing in the contract to restrict how it should be worshipped, and thus dismissed the case.

How did Mullah Nasreddin get his house back?

Mullah Nasreddin got his house back because the neighbour, after long arguments with his wife and a sleepless night, was unable to tolerate the situation any longer and begged the mullah to buy the house back at a bargain price.

B. Answer these questions with reference to the context.

“My father never had the chance to finish hammering it in.” a. What is being referred to here by the speaker? * The speaker is referring to a specific nail sticking out on the wall of the living room. b. Why is his father not able to complete the job? * His father was not able to complete the job because he had a heart attack and died. c. Why does the speaker mention it now? * The speaker mentions it now to create an emotional connection and a reason for him to retain ownership of the nail as a clause in the house sale contract, which is part of his larger plan.

“This is going too far. We cannot have that.” a. Who says this and to whom? * The neighbour says this to Mullah Nasreddin. b. What has the listener done? * The listener (Mullah Nasreddin) has just dragged in a sack full of cow dung and is proceeding to hang it on his nail. c. Does the listener stop what he is doing? Why? * No, the listener does not stop what he is doing. He continues because the neighbour had signed a contract explicitly allowing him to do whatever he wanted with his nail, and Nasreddin points this out.

C. Think and answer.

What do you think of the neighbour and his wife? Did they deserve what they got? Explain why.

The neighbour was greedy and crooked, trying to exploit Mullah Nasreddin’s poverty by offering a “pitiful price” for his house. His wife, while initially cautious, eventually relented for the sake of a bargain. They both prioritized a cheap deal over fair dealings. They did deserve what they got because their misfortune was a direct consequence of their own actions: the neighbour’s attempt to take advantage and his short-sightedness in signing a vague contract, and the wife’s complicity in the initial unfair deal. Their discomfort and eventual surrender served as a just consequence for their unethical behavior.

Is Mullah Nasreddin the hero of the story or the villain? Is playing tricks on people a good way to get what you want? Explain with real-life examples how trying to deceive people can be a bad thing.

Mullah Nasreddin is presented as the hero of the story. While he uses a “trick,” it’s a defensive and restorative one, aimed at reclaiming his ancestral home from someone who tried to exploit him. He doesn’t seek to harm or unjustly gain, but to undo an unfair situation.

Generally, playing tricks on people to get what you want is not a good way to achieve goals, especially if those tricks involve deception or cause harm. It can erode trust, damage relationships, and often leads to negative consequences for everyone involved.

Real-life examples of trying to deceive people being a bad thing:

Cheating on a test: A student might get a good grade in the short term, but they don’t truly learn the material, and if caught, they face severe penalties, including suspension or expulsion, and damage to their academic reputation.

Lying on a job application: An applicant might get a job they are not qualified for. This can lead to poor performance, stress, eventual termination, and damage to their professional standing, making it hard to find future employment.

Selling a faulty product and hiding defects: A company might make a quick profit, but customers will lose trust, demand refunds, and spread negative reviews. This can lead to boycotts, legal action, and the company’s ultimate downfall.

Spreading rumors or gossip: While it might give someone temporary social power, it destroys reputations, creates conflict, and isolates the deceiver as others learn not to trust them.

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.