|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Updated on: 06 Oct 2019, 23:10
Originally posted by aashu4uiit on 14 Jun 2014, 10:05.
Last edited by Sajjad1994 on 06 Oct 2019, 23:10, edited 3 times in total.
Last edited by Sajjad1994 on 06 Oct 2019, 23:10, edited 3 times in total.
Updated - Complete topic (816).
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question 1
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
46% (03:23) correct
54%
(03:34) wrong
based on 188
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
For all their significant differences, these philosophers had one thing in common: they believed that modern political thinking must be based on reason, on a rational analysis of human nature and of the conditions necessary for freedom and justice, in states maintained by the consent of the governed. Hence, they would almost all share a certain despair and wonder at the extent to which modern politics has in some places been dominated by irrationality, by, for example, the success of charismatic tyrants who justify their activities by the cult of personality or by racial-ethnic-nationalistic metaphors or by a return to theocracy, the rule of the clerisy in the name of a traditional religion.
Dealing with such states creates real problems for Liberals and Communists alike, because they rest on principles foreign to the entire modern Western tradition and hence are often frustratingly incomprehensible to Westerners. Its very hard for us to accept that some people may not want democracy, do not place a particularly high value on personal liberty to do as they wish, and are not concerned about the consent of the governed or citizens' rights in the way that our models of the state require.
In the West, the Hobbes-Locke formulation of liberal political order is very much alive and in the ascendant, as the hard-won adjustments to that brought about by a socialism inspired by Marx are, bit by bit, being shredded by the need to keep capitalism dynamic and by the growing power of giant corporations. At the same time, however, the threats posed by terrorism are leading many Western governments to introduce significant limitations on personal liberty in the name of national security.
It's also clear that the political and economic success of Western liberalism is helping to increase the already alarming gap between rich and poor throughout the world, in precisely the way Marx predicted. There is no shortage of dire warnings about the urgent need to address this issue with something more than World Trade Organization meetings and World Bank loans. But any intelligent and effective steps for more global justice may well require a significant re-evaluation of the very principles on which the success of that liberalism depends.
Dealing with such states creates real problems for Liberals and Communists alike, because they rest on principles foreign to the entire modern Western tradition and hence are often frustratingly incomprehensible to Westerners. Its very hard for us to accept that some people may not want democracy, do not place a particularly high value on personal liberty to do as they wish, and are not concerned about the consent of the governed or citizens' rights in the way that our models of the state require.
In the West, the Hobbes-Locke formulation of liberal political order is very much alive and in the ascendant, as the hard-won adjustments to that brought about by a socialism inspired by Marx are, bit by bit, being shredded by the need to keep capitalism dynamic and by the growing power of giant corporations. At the same time, however, the threats posed by terrorism are leading many Western governments to introduce significant limitations on personal liberty in the name of national security.
It's also clear that the political and economic success of Western liberalism is helping to increase the already alarming gap between rich and poor throughout the world, in precisely the way Marx predicted. There is no shortage of dire warnings about the urgent need to address this issue with something more than World Trade Organization meetings and World Bank loans. But any intelligent and effective steps for more global justice may well require a significant re-evaluation of the very principles on which the success of that liberalism depends.
1. Which of the following most accurately describes the meaning of the first sentence of paragraph three?
A. Modern corporations are threatening the Hobbes-Locke formulation of liberal political order.
B. Marxist socialism is successfully adjusting to the threat of capitalism.
C. The threats posed by terrorism have resulted in limitations on personal liberty in many Western governments.
D. Capitalism made concessions to Marxist socialism that are now being undone.
E. The West won its battle to stem the spread of socialism in the East.
A. Modern corporations are threatening the Hobbes-Locke formulation of liberal political order.
B. Marxist socialism is successfully adjusting to the threat of capitalism.
C. The threats posed by terrorism have resulted in limitations on personal liberty in many Western governments.
D. Capitalism made concessions to Marxist socialism that are now being undone.
E. The West won its battle to stem the spread of socialism in the East.
08 Jan 2019, 21:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
+1 kudos to the posts containing answer explanations of all questions
09 Jan 2019, 10:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
This is my first RC explanation, so forgive any errors. IR/Polisci grad here, so my moment to finally be helpful. The first sentence of the third paragraph touches on several points, to break it down in parts:
In the West, the Hobbes-Locke formulation of liberal political order is very much alive and in the ascendant -> This means in the west we are still under the Hobbes-Locke political order
as the hard-won adjustments to that brought about by a socialism inspired by Marx are -> Marxism brought about adjustments to the capitalist system such as unions, worker rights, health care, etc
bit by bit, being shredded by the need to keep capitalism dynamic and by the growing power of giant corporations -> The need for capitalism to grow/seek profit (dynamic) and power of corporations seeking profit is destroying the adjustments mentioned above
A. Modern corporations are threatening the Hobbes-Locke formulation of liberal political order. -> Modern corporations are threatening Marxism/Socialism, not the Hobbes-Locke political order
B. Marxist socialism is successfully adjusting to the threat of capitalism. -> Marxist socialism is being "shredded" not adjusting
C. The threats posed by terrorism have resulted in limitations on personal liberty in many Western governments. -> 2nd sentence of third paragraph, not first sentence
D. Capitalism made concessions to Marxist socialism that are now being undone. -> Shredding = undone, adjustments = concessions made by Capitalism. Correct answer
E. The West won its battle to stem the spread of socialism in the East. -> Conflates communism/socialism which are different system, not mentioned in target sentence
D is correct
The way concepts are stated are a bit challenging as it references several political science terms without clearly explaining differences/definitions
In the West, the Hobbes-Locke formulation of liberal political order is very much alive and in the ascendant -> This means in the west we are still under the Hobbes-Locke political order
as the hard-won adjustments to that brought about by a socialism inspired by Marx are -> Marxism brought about adjustments to the capitalist system such as unions, worker rights, health care, etc
bit by bit, being shredded by the need to keep capitalism dynamic and by the growing power of giant corporations -> The need for capitalism to grow/seek profit (dynamic) and power of corporations seeking profit is destroying the adjustments mentioned above
A. Modern corporations are threatening the Hobbes-Locke formulation of liberal political order. -> Modern corporations are threatening Marxism/Socialism, not the Hobbes-Locke political order
B. Marxist socialism is successfully adjusting to the threat of capitalism. -> Marxist socialism is being "shredded" not adjusting
C. The threats posed by terrorism have resulted in limitations on personal liberty in many Western governments. -> 2nd sentence of third paragraph, not first sentence
D. Capitalism made concessions to Marxist socialism that are now being undone. -> Shredding = undone, adjustments = concessions made by Capitalism. Correct answer
E. The West won its battle to stem the spread of socialism in the East. -> Conflates communism/socialism which are different system, not mentioned in target sentence
D is correct
The way concepts are stated are a bit challenging as it references several political science terms without clearly explaining differences/definitions
