Reading Comprehension (GMAT)

The author attributes all of the following to Marxism:
I. It is instigative in nature.
II. It is useful beyond its advocacy of egalitarianism.
III. It has merit in its demands from equitable distribution of wealth.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
All radical revolutions which are advocated in the interests of the people are commended to the people, and the people are invited to accomplish them, on the ground that majorities are capable of molding society in any manner they please. As applied to matters of legislation and government, this theory is sufficiently familiar to everybody. It has been elaborated in endless detail, and has expressed itself in the constitutions of all modern democracies. What Karl Marx did, and did for the first time, was to invest this theory of the all-efficiency of the majority with definiteness, in respect of distribution of wealth, similar to that with which it had been invested already in respect of the making of laws and the dictation of national policies.
The practical outcome of the scientific reasoning of Marx is summed up in the formula which has figured as the premise and conclusion of every congress of his followers, of every book or manifesto published by them, and of every propagandist oration uttered by them at street-corners, namely, “All wealth is produced by labor, therefore to the laborers all wealth is due” — a doctrine in itself not novel if taken as a pious generality, but presented by Marx as the outcome of an elaborate system of economics.
The efficiency of this doctrine as an instrument of agitation is obvious. It appeals at once to two universal instincts: the instinct of cupidity and the instinct of universal justice. It stimulates the laborers to demand more than they receive already, and it stimulates to demand the more on the ground that they themselves have produced it. It teaches them that the wealth of every man who is not a manual laborer is something stolen from themselves which ought to be and which can be restored to them.

What, most likely, is the political orientation of the author?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
All radical revolutions which are advocated in the interests of the people are commended to the people, and the people are invited to accomplish them, on the ground that majorities are capable of molding society in any manner they please. As applied to matters of legislation and government, this theory is sufficiently familiar to everybody. It has been elaborated in endless detail, and has expressed itself in the constitutions of all modern democracies. What Karl Marx did, and did for the first time, was to invest this theory of the all-efficiency of the majority with definiteness, in respect of distribution of wealth, similar to that with which it had been invested already in respect of the making of laws and the dictation of national policies.
The practical outcome of the scientific reasoning of Marx is summed up in the formula which has figured as the premise and conclusion of every congress of his followers, of every book or manifesto published by them, and of every propagandist oration uttered by them at street-corners, namely, “All wealth is produced by labor, therefore to the laborers all wealth is due” — a doctrine in itself not novel if taken as a pious generality, but presented by Marx as the outcome of an elaborate system of economics.
The efficiency of this doctrine as an instrument of agitation is obvious. It appeals at once to two universal instincts: the instinct of cupidity and the instinct of universal justice. It stimulates the laborers to demand more than they receive already, and it stimulates to demand the more on the ground that they themselves have produced it. It teaches them that the wealth of every man who is not a manual laborer is something stolen from themselves which ought to be and which can be restored to them.

Which of the following is/are true as per the passage?I. According to Spencer, individual greatness is a sham.
II. Webb says that the cartel of brilliance is the most secure one.
III. Providing inducement to gifted individuals is the hardest task.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
When socialism, says Mr. Sidney Webb, shall have abolished all other monopolies, there will still remain to be dealt with the most formidable monopoly of all — namely, “the natural monopoly of business ability,” or “the special ability and energy with which some persons are born.” The specific problem at this time is how to provide the natural monopolists of business ability with all adequate motives to develop and exercise their talents. We shall find that the arguments brought forward by them in this connection divide themselves broadly into two classes, one of which deals with the problem of motive directly, while the other class aims at preparing the way to its solution by showing in advance that its difficulties are far less formidable than they appear to be.
These arguments possess a peculiar interest owing to the fact that they have not originated with socialistic thinkers at all, but have been drawn by them from the evolutionary philosophy of the nineteenth century. The dominant idea which distinguished this school of thought was the insignificance of the individual as compared with society past and present. Thus Herbert Spencer opens his work on the Study of Sociology with an elaborate attack on what he calls “The Great Man Theory,” according to which the explanation of the main events of history is to be sought in the influence of exceptional or great men. Such an explanation, said Spencer, is no explanation at all. Great men, however great, are not isolated phenomena. Whatever they may do as the “proximate initiators” of change, they themselves “have their chief cause in the generations they have descended from,” and depend for the influence which is commonly attributed to their actions, on “the multitudinous conditions” of the generation to which they belong.

Which of the following best describes the relationship between the two paragraphs?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
When socialism, says Mr. Sidney Webb, shall have abolished all other monopolies, there will still remain to be dealt with the most formidable monopoly of all — namely, “the natural monopoly of business ability,” or “the special ability and energy with which some persons are born.” The specific problem at this time is how to provide the natural monopolists of business ability with all adequate motives to develop and exercise their talents. We shall find that the arguments brought forward by them in this connection divide themselves broadly into two classes, one of which deals with the problem of motive directly, while the other class aims at preparing the way to its solution by showing in advance that its difficulties are far less formidable than they appear to be.
These arguments possess a peculiar interest owing to the fact that they have not originated with socialistic thinkers at all, but have been drawn by them from the evolutionary philosophy of the nineteenth century. The dominant idea which distinguished this school of thought was the insignificance of the individual as compared with society past and present. Thus Herbert Spencer opens his work on the Study of Sociology with an elaborate attack on what he calls “The Great Man Theory,” according to which the explanation of the main events of history is to be sought in the influence of exceptional or great men. Such an explanation, said Spencer, is no explanation at all. Great men, however great, are not isolated phenomena. Whatever they may do as the “proximate initiators” of change, they themselves “have their chief cause in the generations they have descended from,” and depend for the influence which is commonly attributed to their actions, on “the multitudinous conditions” of the generation to which they belong.

What point is the author trying to make?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Self-Analysis, apart from its scientific uses, has seldom rewarded those who have practiced it. To probe into the inner world of motive and desire has proved of small benefit to any one, whether hermit, monk or nun; indeed it has been altogether mischievous in result, unless the mind that probed, was especially healthy. Bitter has been the dissatisfaction, both with the process, and with what came of it, for being miserably superficial it could lead to no real knowledge of self, but simply centered self on self, producing instead of self-knowledge, self-consciousness, and often the beginnings of mental disease.
For fruitful self analysis it is apparently necessary then to have a clear, definite aim outside self -- such as achieving the gain of some special piece of knowledge, and we find such definite aims in psychology, and certain systems of philosophy – Greek, English, and German, in Plato, Locke, Kant, and in the meditations of Descartes, and many others. Self-analysis is the basis of psychological knowledge, but the science has been chiefly used to explain the methods by which we obtain knowledge of the outer world in relation to ourselves.
When a philosopher centers self on self, in order to know self as a result of introspection, the results have been disastrous, and have contributed nothing to knowledge, properly so-called. If religious self-examination has its dangers, so also has philosophical self-analysis for its own sake. It is a fascinating study for those who care for thought for thought's sake – the so-called Hamlets of the world, who are for ever revolving round the axes of their own ideas and dreams, and who never progress towards any clear issue.

What is the relationship between the second and the third paragraphs?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Self-Analysis, apart from its scientific uses, has seldom rewarded those who have practiced it. To probe into the inner world of motive and desire has proved of small benefit to any one, whether hermit, monk or nun; indeed it has been altogether mischievous in result, unless the mind that probed, was especially healthy. Bitter has been the dissatisfaction, both with the process, and with what came of it, for being miserably superficial it could lead to no real knowledge of self, but simply centered self on self, producing instead of self-knowledge, self-consciousness, and often the beginnings of mental disease.
For fruitful self analysis it is apparently necessary then to have a clear, definite aim outside self -- such as achieving the gain of some special piece of knowledge, and we find such definite aims in psychology, and certain systems of philosophy – Greek, English, and German, in Plato, Locke, Kant, and in the meditations of Descartes, and many others. Self-analysis is the basis of psychological knowledge, but the science has been chiefly used to explain the methods by which we obtain knowledge of the outer world in relation to ourselves.
When a philosopher centers self on self, in order to know self as a result of introspection, the results have been disastrous, and have contributed nothing to knowledge, properly so-called. If religious self-examination has its dangers, so also has philosophical self-analysis for its own sake. It is a fascinating study for those who care for thought for thought's sake – the so-called Hamlets of the world, who are for ever revolving round the axes of their own ideas and dreams, and who never progress towards any clear issue.

The author would most likely sum up his opinion by saying that

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Neither do we conceive it as sufficiently expressing or explaining the whole facts of the case, to say that the currency has been deranged. There has been unquestionably a great derangement of the currency; but this may have been an effect rather than a cause of the more general disturbance; or, again, it may have been only one cause out of many causes. Adopting the prevalent theory, that the universal use of specie in the regulation of the international trade of the world determines for each nation the amount of its metallic treasure, it was there argued that any redundant local circulation of paper must raise the level of local prices above the legitimate specie over exports; which imports can be paid for only in specie, the very basis of the inordinate local circulation. Of course, then, there is a rapid contraction in the issue of notes, and an inevitable and wide-spread rupture of the usual relations of trade. But although this view is true in principle, and particularly true in its application to the United States, where trade floats almost exclusively upon a paper ocean, it is yet an elementary and local view; local, as not comprising the state of facts in England and France; and elementary, in as much as it omits all reference to the possibility of a great fluctuation of prices being produced by other means than an excess or deficiency of money. In France, as we know, the currency is almost entirely metallic, while in England it is metallic so far as the lesser exchanges of commerce are concerned; there is an obvious impropriety, therefore, in extending to the financial difficulties of those nations a theory founded upon a peculiarity in the position of our own.

The author of the passage will agree with which of the following statements?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Neither do we conceive it as sufficiently expressing or explaining the whole facts of the case, to say that the currency has been deranged. There has been unquestionably a great derangement of the currency; but this may have been an effect rather than a cause of the more general disturbance; or, again, it may have been only one cause out of many causes. Adopting the prevalent theory, that the universal use of specie in the regulation of the international trade of the world determines for each nation the amount of its metallic treasure, it was there argued that any redundant local circulation of paper must raise the level of local prices above the legitimate specie over exports; which imports can be paid for only in specie, the very basis of the inordinate local circulation. Of course, then, there is a rapid contraction in the issue of notes, and an inevitable and wide-spread rupture of the usual relations of trade. But although this view is true in principle, and particularly true in its application to the United States, where trade floats almost exclusively upon a paper ocean, it is yet an elementary and local view; local, as not comprising the state of facts in England and France; and elementary, in as much as it omits all reference to the possibility of a great fluctuation of prices being produced by other means than an excess or deficiency of money. In France, as we know, the currency is almost entirely metallic, while in England it is metallic so far as the lesser exchanges of commerce are concerned; there is an obvious impropriety, therefore, in extending to the financial difficulties of those nations a theory founded upon a peculiarity in the position of our own.