Reading Comprehension

Which of the following will, most logically, be discussed next in the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Superstition gives us the freedom to connect everything, even things little known to us. People foresee their future in the planets, some dates are auspicious, some not. We fear these things because their effects, if there are any, are little known. We cannot peek into or relate much to the future; so we are superstitious about it.
If we cannot learn about a relationship, does that mean it does not exist? On seeing a tiger, our sight accepts its existence and on hearing its roar also the existence of tiger can be accepted. So we as human beings have a marked correlation mechanism. But our knowledge is limited. Whatever our sense of assessment of correlations, there can always be a new amazing insight in connection with the idea. We cannot say we have evolved with the perfect and satisfactory derivation, as all our knowing is also limited.
All Aristotelian, Newtonian works and physical theories divulge connections which were unimagined before their revelation. Such people developed new tools to establish connectivity and slowly developed a theory in the bargain.
So we can say, probably all superstitions could turn tomorrow’s science given the right treatment. Relationships of Earth with the moon, the sun, the planets were all based on superstitions in pre historic times but people worked on these superstitions and slowly a real relation based on science was derived.

The tone of the author is

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Superstition gives us the freedom to connect everything, even things little known to us. People foresee their future in the planets, some dates are auspicious, some not. We fear these things because their effects, if there are any, are little known. We cannot peek into or relate much to the future; so we are superstitious about it.
If we cannot learn about a relationship, does that mean it does not exist? On seeing a tiger, our sight accepts its existence and on hearing its roar also the existence of tiger can be accepted. So we as human beings have a marked correlation mechanism. But our knowledge is limited. Whatever our sense of assessment of correlations, there can always be a new amazing insight in connection with the idea. We cannot say we have evolved with the perfect and satisfactory derivation, as all our knowing is also limited.
All Aristotelian, Newtonian works and physical theories divulge connections which were unimagined before their revelation. Such people developed new tools to establish connectivity and slowly developed a theory in the bargain.
So we can say, probably all superstitions could turn tomorrow’s science given the right treatment. Relationships of Earth with the moon, the sun, the planets were all based on superstitions in pre historic times but people worked on these superstitions and slowly a real relation based on science was derived.

Which of the following statements are true according to the passage? I. Communism is better than capitalism as it is proving more robust. II. The increasingly evident consensus is in favor of embracing communism. III. A new system of economic governance is needed.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
In a utopian world, communism might be the answer for all the economic ills of the world, though that assumption might and will be challenged by the advocates of various other types of economic systems. With many large, developed economies tottering on the edge of exhaustion, or having succumbed to the chimera of the infallibility of free enterprise, voices of a fallback to a more measured and balanced run towards economic prosperity are gaining strength around the world. The rise and rise of China as a global economic powerhouse is also providing food for thought to the citizenry of many nations who are struggling with failing banks, bankrupting corporations and ever increasing balance of payments deficit. China has a very centrally regulated economy, with everything being controlled by the Politburo, and there is not a great deal of transparency in the seemingly rosy economic picture. Where outflow of information is very tightly controlled by the State, it comes as a surprise that the nation is allowing news to filter out that it has been facing labor unrest over low wages and the ever widening gap between the rich, poor and the middle class. In a supposedly classless society it seems ironic that factory workers have to resort to strikes to press their demands for higher wages. What is even more surprising is that the State sponsored Unions, the only kind that are allowed to exist, and constituted to safeguard worker rights, are siding with the factory owners and exhorting the workers to call off their strikes and not push for higher wages.

What is the reason for China's seemingly rosy economic health?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
In a utopian world, communism might be the answer for all the economic ills of the world, though that assumption might and will be challenged by the advocates of various other types of economic systems. With many large, developed economies tottering on the edge of exhaustion, or having succumbed to the chimera of the infallibility of free enterprise, voices of a fallback to a more measured and balanced run towards economic prosperity are gaining strength around the world. The rise and rise of China as a global economic powerhouse is also providing food for thought to the citizenry of many nations who are struggling with failing banks, bankrupting corporations and ever increasing balance of payments deficit. China has a very centrally regulated economy, with everything being controlled by the Politburo, and there is not a great deal of transparency in the seemingly rosy economic picture. Where outflow of information is very tightly controlled by the State, it comes as a surprise that the nation is allowing news to filter out that it has been facing labor unrest over low wages and the ever widening gap between the rich, poor and the middle class. In a supposedly classless society it seems ironic that factory workers have to resort to strikes to press their demands for higher wages. What is even more surprising is that the State sponsored Unions, the only kind that are allowed to exist, and constituted to safeguard worker rights, are siding with the factory owners and exhorting the workers to call off their strikes and not push for higher wages.

The author of the passage is most likely to agree with which of the following?I. Most conveniences of today would have been unimaginable just a century ago. II. The government, like an overbearing elder sibling, is trying to monitor our moves. III. The harder we run, the harder we are likely to fall.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Someone born towards the end of the 20th century would be hard pressed to comprehend how technology has changed lives for the very simple reason that he has always been used to the all pervasive reach of technology in almost every field of life. Like the ‘matrix’ in the movie by the same name, every aspect of life is subject to a perhaps unconscious control and manipulation by the omnipotent and omnipresent big brother. There is perhaps no place in the world that cannot be reached, or be untouched, by the fingerprints of modern science. The Morse code operators of the yesteryears would turn in their graves if they could see how easy and effortless it is now to contact anyone, anywhere in the world. All that is needed is the unseen yet omnipresent ether and a device to harness it. One might be snoozing in a hammock swaying gently in the sea breeze on a beach in St. Tropez or be at a memorial service, the ubiquitous cell phone can arrest us with its loud and insistent summons. We are lonelier than ever in this world made tiny by networking websites. We’ve befriended strangers and have become strangers with ourselves.
Taking a look at the gas-guzzling ‘Hummers’ of today that can go up or down almost impossible inclines, it would be very hard to comprehend that the first ‘T-Model’ by Ford could not climb hills because its fuel intake was located at the front end of the gas tank and a sharp incline would cause the fuel to flow back from the intake thereby starving it. Today we drive across deserts, wade through streams and drive scores of miles everyday to work. Much like the ‘SkyPak’ man from the famous advertisements, our cars and SUVs take us anywhere and everywhere. Nothing is sacrosanct, no place too remote and no destination too far. We have left our footprints in places which, for our ancestors, would have been inaccessible just a couple of centuries ago. We have polluted and defiled both the earth and our environment. Wherever our reach increases, our Carbon footprint follows as we go merrily shooting holes in the ozone layer enveloping the earth. The holes might be just tiny pinpricks on the cosmic scale, but every time we rev up those engines, we are sending up tiny tendrils of annihilation.

According to the passage, enterprise has left the following near indelible marks on human lives:I. A world that is imploding upon itself under a barrage of cues. II. A seamless coupling of bounties with Pandora’s Box of troubles. III. Unerring filling of a void by newfangled transmutation.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Someone born towards the end of the 20th century would be hard pressed to comprehend how technology has changed lives for the very simple reason that he has always been used to the all pervasive reach of technology in almost every field of life. Like the ‘matrix’ in the movie by the same name, every aspect of life is subject to a perhaps unconscious control and manipulation by the omnipotent and omnipresent big brother. There is perhaps no place in the world that cannot be reached, or be untouched, by the fingerprints of modern science. The Morse code operators of the yesteryears would turn in their graves if they could see how easy and effortless it is now to contact anyone, anywhere in the world. All that is needed is the unseen yet omnipresent ether and a device to harness it. One might be snoozing in a hammock swaying gently in the sea breeze on a beach in St. Tropez or be at a memorial service, the ubiquitous cell phone can arrest us with its loud and insistent summons. We are lonelier than ever in this world made tiny by networking websites. We’ve befriended strangers and have become strangers with ourselves.
Taking a look at the gas-guzzling ‘Hummers’ of today that can go up or down almost impossible inclines, it would be very hard to comprehend that the first ‘T-Model’ by Ford could not climb hills because its fuel intake was located at the front end of the gas tank and a sharp incline would cause the fuel to flow back from the intake thereby starving it. Today we drive across deserts, wade through streams and drive scores of miles everyday to work. Much like the ‘SkyPak’ man from the famous advertisements, our cars and SUVs take us anywhere and everywhere. Nothing is sacrosanct, no place too remote and no destination too far. We have left our footprints in places which, for our ancestors, would have been inaccessible just a couple of centuries ago. We have polluted and defiled both the earth and our environment. Wherever our reach increases, our Carbon footprint follows as we go merrily shooting holes in the ozone layer enveloping the earth. The holes might be just tiny pinpricks on the cosmic scale, but every time we rev up those engines, we are sending up tiny tendrils of annihilation.

What does the author want to convey in the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Someone born towards the end of the 20th century would be hard pressed to comprehend how technology has changed lives for the very simple reason that he has always been used to the all pervasive reach of technology in almost every field of life. Like the ‘matrix’ in the movie by the same name, every aspect of life is subject to a perhaps unconscious control and manipulation by the omnipotent and omnipresent big brother. There is perhaps no place in the world that cannot be reached, or be untouched, by the fingerprints of modern science. The Morse code operators of the yesteryears would turn in their graves if they could see how easy and effortless it is now to contact anyone, anywhere in the world. All that is needed is the unseen yet omnipresent ether and a device to harness it. One might be snoozing in a hammock swaying gently in the sea breeze on a beach in St. Tropez or be at a memorial service, the ubiquitous cell phone can arrest us with its loud and insistent summons. We are lonelier than ever in this world made tiny by networking websites. We’ve befriended strangers and have become strangers with ourselves.
Taking a look at the gas-guzzling ‘Hummers’ of today that can go up or down almost impossible inclines, it would be very hard to comprehend that the first ‘T-Model’ by Ford could not climb hills because its fuel intake was located at the front end of the gas tank and a sharp incline would cause the fuel to flow back from the intake thereby starving it. Today we drive across deserts, wade through streams and drive scores of miles everyday to work. Much like the ‘SkyPak’ man from the famous advertisements, our cars and SUVs take us anywhere and everywhere. Nothing is sacrosanct, no place too remote and no destination too far. We have left our footprints in places which, for our ancestors, would have been inaccessible just a couple of centuries ago. We have polluted and defiled both the earth and our environment. Wherever our reach increases, our Carbon footprint follows as we go merrily shooting holes in the ozone layer enveloping the earth. The holes might be just tiny pinpricks on the cosmic scale, but every time we rev up those engines, we are sending up tiny tendrils of annihilation.

The author says, 'but every time we rev up that engine, we are sending up tiny tendrils of annihilation' in order to

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Someone born towards the end of the 20th century would be hard pressed to comprehend how technology has changed lives for the very simple reason that he has always been used to the all pervasive reach of technology in almost every field of life. Like the ‘matrix’ in the movie by the same name, every aspect of life is subject to a perhaps unconscious control and manipulation by the omnipotent and omnipresent big brother. There is perhaps no place in the world that cannot be reached, or be untouched, by the fingerprints of modern science. The Morse code operators of the yesteryears would turn in their graves if they could see how easy and effortless it is now to contact anyone, anywhere in the world. All that is needed is the unseen yet omnipresent ether and a device to harness it. One might be snoozing in a hammock swaying gently in the sea breeze on a beach in St. Tropez or be at a memorial service, the ubiquitous cell phone can arrest us with its loud and insistent summons. We are lonelier than ever in this world made tiny by networking websites. We’ve befriended strangers and have become strangers with ourselves.
Taking a look at the gas-guzzling ‘Hummers’ of today that can go up or down almost impossible inclines, it would be very hard to comprehend that the first ‘T-Model’ by Ford could not climb hills because its fuel intake was located at the front end of the gas tank and a sharp incline would cause the fuel to flow back from the intake thereby starving it. Today we drive across deserts, wade through streams and drive scores of miles everyday to work. Much like the ‘SkyPak’ man from the famous advertisements, our cars and SUVs take us anywhere and everywhere. Nothing is sacrosanct, no place too remote and no destination too far. We have left our footprints in places which, for our ancestors, would have been inaccessible just a couple of centuries ago. We have polluted and defiled both the earth and our environment. Wherever our reach increases, our Carbon footprint follows as we go merrily shooting holes in the ozone layer enveloping the earth. The holes might be just tiny pinpricks on the cosmic scale, but every time we rev up those engines, we are sending up tiny tendrils of annihilation.

How did the painters of Louis Ouinze School exhibit cleverness?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Fanciful as the Louis Quinze art seems, by contrast with that of Louis Quatorze, it, too, is essentially classical. Watteau, Fragonard, are as gay, as spontaneous, as careless, as vivacious as Boldini. Their very names suggest not merely freedom but a sportive and abandoned license. But in what a narrow round they move! How their imaginativeness is limited by their artificiality! What a talent, what a genius they have for artificiality. It is the era par excellence of dilettantism, and nothing is less romantic than dilettantism. All their material is traditional. Of ideas they have almost none. They are as barren of invention in any large sense as if they were imitators instead of, in a sense, the originators of a new phase.
Yet they have that distinct quality of charm which is eternally incompatible with routine. They are as little constructive as the age itself. Of everything thus indicated one predicates at once unconsciousness, the momentum of antecedent thought modified by the ease born of habit; the carelessness due to having one's thinking done for one. But out of this very condition of things, and out of this attitude of mind, arises a new art, or rather a new phase of art, essentially classic, as I said, but nevertheless imbued with a character of its own, and this character is distinctly charming. Wherein does the charm lie? In two qualities, I think, one of which has not hitherto appeared in French painting, and that is cleverness in the use of color. The Louis Quinze painters were sensitive to that vibration of atmosphere that blends local hues into the ensemble that produces tone. The ensemble of their tints is what we mean by color. Since the Venetians this note had not appeared.
By cleverness, as exhibited by the Louis Quinze painters, I do not mean mere technical ability, but something more inclusive, something relating quite as much to attitude of mind as to dexterity of treatment. There is a sense of confidence and capability in the way they view, as well as in the way they handle the light material. To be adequate to the requirements - rarely very exacting in any case - never to show stupidity, to have a great deal of taste and an instinctive feeling for what is elegant and refined, to abhor pedantry and take gayety at once lightly and seriously, and beyond this to take no thought, is to be clever; and in this sense the Louis Quinze painters are the first, as they certainly are the typical, clever artists.

Which of the following best parallels the approach of Louis Ouinze School of Art?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Fanciful as the Louis Quinze art seems, by contrast with that of Louis Quatorze, it, too, is essentially classical. Watteau, Fragonard, are as gay, as spontaneous, as careless, as vivacious as Boldini. Their very names suggest not merely freedom but a sportive and abandoned license. But in what a narrow round they move! How their imaginativeness is limited by their artificiality! What a talent, what a genius they have for artificiality. It is the era par excellence of dilettantism, and nothing is less romantic than dilettantism. All their material is traditional. Of ideas they have almost none. They are as barren of invention in any large sense as if they were imitators instead of, in a sense, the originators of a new phase.
Yet they have that distinct quality of charm which is eternally incompatible with routine. They are as little constructive as the age itself. Of everything thus indicated one predicates at once unconsciousness, the momentum of antecedent thought modified by the ease born of habit; the carelessness due to having one's thinking done for one. But out of this very condition of things, and out of this attitude of mind, arises a new art, or rather a new phase of art, essentially classic, as I said, but nevertheless imbued with a character of its own, and this character is distinctly charming. Wherein does the charm lie? In two qualities, I think, one of which has not hitherto appeared in French painting, and that is cleverness in the use of color. The Louis Quinze painters were sensitive to that vibration of atmosphere that blends local hues into the ensemble that produces tone. The ensemble of their tints is what we mean by color. Since the Venetians this note had not appeared.
By cleverness, as exhibited by the Louis Quinze painters, I do not mean mere technical ability, but something more inclusive, something relating quite as much to attitude of mind as to dexterity of treatment. There is a sense of confidence and capability in the way they view, as well as in the way they handle the light material. To be adequate to the requirements - rarely very exacting in any case - never to show stupidity, to have a great deal of taste and an instinctive feeling for what is elegant and refined, to abhor pedantry and take gayety at once lightly and seriously, and beyond this to take no thought, is to be clever; and in this sense the Louis Quinze painters are the first, as they certainly are the typical, clever artists.

Why are artists of Louis Quinze school referred to as having a genius for artificiality?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Fanciful as the Louis Quinze art seems, by contrast with that of Louis Quatorze, it, too, is essentially classical. Watteau, Fragonard, are as gay, as spontaneous, as careless, as vivacious as Boldini. Their very names suggest not merely freedom but a sportive and abandoned license. But in what a narrow round they move! How their imaginativeness is limited by their artificiality! What a talent, what a genius they have for artificiality. It is the era par excellence of dilettantism, and nothing is less romantic than dilettantism. All their material is traditional. Of ideas they have almost none. They are as barren of invention in any large sense as if they were imitators instead of, in a sense, the originators of a new phase.
Yet they have that distinct quality of charm which is eternally incompatible with routine. They are as little constructive as the age itself. Of everything thus indicated one predicates at once unconsciousness, the momentum of antecedent thought modified by the ease born of habit; the carelessness due to having one's thinking done for one. But out of this very condition of things, and out of this attitude of mind, arises a new art, or rather a new phase of art, essentially classic, as I said, but nevertheless imbued with a character of its own, and this character is distinctly charming. Wherein does the charm lie? In two qualities, I think, one of which has not hitherto appeared in French painting, and that is cleverness in the use of color. The Louis Quinze painters were sensitive to that vibration of atmosphere that blends local hues into the ensemble that produces tone. The ensemble of their tints is what we mean by color. Since the Venetians this note had not appeared.
By cleverness, as exhibited by the Louis Quinze painters, I do not mean mere technical ability, but something more inclusive, something relating quite as much to attitude of mind as to dexterity of treatment. There is a sense of confidence and capability in the way they view, as well as in the way they handle the light material. To be adequate to the requirements - rarely very exacting in any case - never to show stupidity, to have a great deal of taste and an instinctive feeling for what is elegant and refined, to abhor pedantry and take gayety at once lightly and seriously, and beyond this to take no thought, is to be clever; and in this sense the Louis Quinze painters are the first, as they certainly are the typical, clever artists.

How can ‘colour’ be considered a distinct element of Louis Ouinze Art?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Fanciful as the Louis Quinze art seems, by contrast with that of Louis Quatorze, it, too, is essentially classical. Watteau, Fragonard, are as gay, as spontaneous, as careless, as vivacious as Boldini. Their very names suggest not merely freedom but a sportive and abandoned license. But in what a narrow round they move! How their imaginativeness is limited by their artificiality! What a talent, what a genius they have for artificiality. It is the era par excellence of dilettantism, and nothing is less romantic than dilettantism. All their material is traditional. Of ideas they have almost none. They are as barren of invention in any large sense as if they were imitators instead of, in a sense, the originators of a new phase.
Yet they have that distinct quality of charm which is eternally incompatible with routine. They are as little constructive as the age itself. Of everything thus indicated one predicates at once unconsciousness, the momentum of antecedent thought modified by the ease born of habit; the carelessness due to having one's thinking done for one. But out of this very condition of things, and out of this attitude of mind, arises a new art, or rather a new phase of art, essentially classic, as I said, but nevertheless imbued with a character of its own, and this character is distinctly charming. Wherein does the charm lie? In two qualities, I think, one of which has not hitherto appeared in French painting, and that is cleverness in the use of color. The Louis Quinze painters were sensitive to that vibration of atmosphere that blends local hues into the ensemble that produces tone. The ensemble of their tints is what we mean by color. Since the Venetians this note had not appeared.
By cleverness, as exhibited by the Louis Quinze painters, I do not mean mere technical ability, but something more inclusive, something relating quite as much to attitude of mind as to dexterity of treatment. There is a sense of confidence and capability in the way they view, as well as in the way they handle the light material. To be adequate to the requirements - rarely very exacting in any case - never to show stupidity, to have a great deal of taste and an instinctive feeling for what is elegant and refined, to abhor pedantry and take gayety at once lightly and seriously, and beyond this to take no thought, is to be clever; and in this sense the Louis Quinze painters are the first, as they certainly are the typical, clever artists.

What is the tone of the author while describing the concept of God and man's belief in Him?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
When we examine the opinions of men, we find that nothing is more uncommon, than common sense; or, in other words, they lack judgment to discover plain truths, or to reject absurdities, and palpable contradictions. We have an example of this in Theology, a system revered in all countries by a great number of men; an object regarded by them as most important, and indispensable to happiness.  An examination of the principles upon which this pretended system is founded, forces us to acknowledge, that these principles are only suppositions, imagined by ignorance, propagated by enthusiasm or knavery, adopted by timid credulity, preserved by custom which never reasons, and revered solely because it is not understood.
In a word, whoever uses common sense upon religious opinions, and will bestow on this inquiry the attention that is commonly given to most subjects, will easily perceive that religion is a mere castle in the air.  Theology is ignorance of natural causes; a tissue of fallacies and contradictions.  In every country, it presents romances void of probability, the hero of which is composed of impossible qualities.  His name, exciting fear in all minds, is only a vague word, to which, men affix ideas or qualities, which are either contradicted by facts, or inconsistence.
In all parts of our globe, fanatics have cut each other's throats, publicly burnt each other, committed without a scruple and even as a duty, the greatest crimes, and shed torrents of blood. What for? To strengthen, support, or propagate the impertinent conjectures of some enthusiasts, or to give validity to the cheats or impostors, in the name of a being, who exists only in their imagination, and who has made himself known only by the ravages, disputes, and follies, he has caused.
Savage and furious nations, perpetually at war, adore, under diverse names, some God, conformable to their ideas, that is to say, cruel, carnivorous, selfish, and blood-thirsty. We find, in all the religions, “a God of armies,” a “jealous God,” an “avenging God,” a "destroying God," a “God,” who is pleased with carnage, and whom his worshippers consider it a duty to serve. Lambs, bulls, children, men, and women, are sacrificed to him. Zealous servants of this barbarous God think themselves obliged even to offer up themselves as a sacrifice to him. Madmen may everywhere be seen, who, after meditating upon their terrible God, imagine that to please him they must inflict on themselves, the most exquisite torments. The gloomy ideas formed of the deity, far from consoling them, have every where disquieted their minds, and prejudiced follies destructive to happiness.
Thus, man has remained a slave without courage, fearing to reason, and unable to extricate himself from the labyrinth, in which he has been wandering.  He believes himself forced under the yoke of his gods, known to him only by the fabulous accounts given by his ministers, who, after binding each unhappy mortal in the chains of prejudice, remain his masters, or else abandon him defenseless to the absolute power of tyrants, no less terrible than the gods, of whom they are the representatives.

What is the main idea of the given passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
When we examine the opinions of men, we find that nothing is more uncommon, than common sense; or, in other words, they lack judgment to discover plain truths, or to reject absurdities, and palpable contradictions. We have an example of this in Theology, a system revered in all countries by a great number of men; an object regarded by them as most important, and indispensable to happiness.  An examination of the principles upon which this pretended system is founded, forces us to acknowledge, that these principles are only suppositions, imagined by ignorance, propagated by enthusiasm or knavery, adopted by timid credulity, preserved by custom which never reasons, and revered solely because it is not understood.
In a word, whoever uses common sense upon religious opinions, and will bestow on this inquiry the attention that is commonly given to most subjects, will easily perceive that religion is a mere castle in the air.  Theology is ignorance of natural causes; a tissue of fallacies and contradictions.  In every country, it presents romances void of probability, the hero of which is composed of impossible qualities.  His name, exciting fear in all minds, is only a vague word, to which, men affix ideas or qualities, which are either contradicted by facts, or inconsistence.
In all parts of our globe, fanatics have cut each other's throats, publicly burnt each other, committed without a scruple and even as a duty, the greatest crimes, and shed torrents of blood. What for? To strengthen, support, or propagate the impertinent conjectures of some enthusiasts, or to give validity to the cheats or impostors, in the name of a being, who exists only in their imagination, and who has made himself known only by the ravages, disputes, and follies, he has caused.
Savage and furious nations, perpetually at war, adore, under diverse names, some God, conformable to their ideas, that is to say, cruel, carnivorous, selfish, and blood-thirsty. We find, in all the religions, “a God of armies,” a “jealous God,” an “avenging God,” a "destroying God," a “God,” who is pleased with carnage, and whom his worshippers consider it a duty to serve. Lambs, bulls, children, men, and women, are sacrificed to him. Zealous servants of this barbarous God think themselves obliged even to offer up themselves as a sacrifice to him. Madmen may everywhere be seen, who, after meditating upon their terrible God, imagine that to please him they must inflict on themselves, the most exquisite torments. The gloomy ideas formed of the deity, far from consoling them, have every where disquieted their minds, and prejudiced follies destructive to happiness.
Thus, man has remained a slave without courage, fearing to reason, and unable to extricate himself from the labyrinth, in which he has been wandering.  He believes himself forced under the yoke of his gods, known to him only by the fabulous accounts given by his ministers, who, after binding each unhappy mortal in the chains of prejudice, remain his masters, or else abandon him defenseless to the absolute power of tyrants, no less terrible than the gods, of whom they are the representatives.

The author is driving home the point that

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
And yet “Know thyself” has always been considered supremely excellent advice, as true for our time, as for the age of Socrates. It certainly is disregarded by most of us, as fully as it was by many of the Greeks, whom Socrates interrogated so ruthlessly. Is there then a sort of self-analysis, which can be carried out for its own sake, and which can be, at the same time, of vital use? It is time to ask these questions if we are ever to know how to analyze ourselves with profit, if we are ever to know ourselves. As students, we are content with every other knowledge but this. After all the self probing of the religious and philosophical, during long centuries, what have we learned? Truly to ourselves, we are enigmas. To know everything else except the self that knows, what a strange position! The one thing that we do not know -- that we feel as if we never could know, is the Self in us. What can we do? And what can we not do? What is the reason of this faculty, or that want of faculty? We have never reached an understanding of ourselves, which makes us not only know, but perceive what we are capable of knowing; which makes us aware, not only that we can do something, but why we can do it. If we would but take half the trouble to understand ourselves that we take to study a science or art, we might then cultivate some our own special lines of thought, our own gifts, that portion of individuality, which we each possess.