Question

A spectre is haunting the world, just as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto of 1848. This time, however, it is not the spectre of communism but that of neoliberalism. Just as Marx and Engels reported of 'a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre,' there is once again an alliance, whether holy or unholy, that has formed to chase the ghost of neoliberalism from the world stage. In any case, it is a curious alliance that has committed to fighting neoliberalism: Religious leaders and artists, environmental activists and globalisation critics, politicians of the left and the right as well as trade unionists, commentators and academics. They all share a passion to unmask neoliberalism as an inhuman, anti-social, and potentially misanthropic ideology or as a cynical exercise by strangely anonymous forces that wish to exploit the world to their own advantage.

The members of this colourful alliance against neoliberalism are as united in their opposition to neoliberalism as they are diverse. This suggests that neoliberalism cannot be too clearly defined as a concept. Rather, it is a broad umbrella under which very different groups with various points of view can meet. In the church of anti-neoliberalism, there is a place for anyone who believes that neoliberalism stands in the way of reaching his or her political goals. This may also explain the lack of any clear and coherent definition of neoliberalism among its dissenters.

Yet the most curious characteristic of neoliberalism is the fact that these days hardly anyone self-identifies as a neoliberal. In former times, ideological debates were fought between, say, conservatives and socialists, collectivists and individualists. While there may not have been any other agreement between these opposing groups, at least they would have agreed about their respective identities. A socialist would not have felt offended by a conservative calling him a socialist and vice-versa. In present-day debates around neoliberalism, on the other hand, most accused of holding 'neoliberal' views would not accept being called 'neoliberal.' Either they would insist on being something else (whether it is 'liberal,' 'classical liberal,' or 'libertarian'), or they would simply claim to be misunderstood by their opponents. In any case, scarcely anybody wants to be a 'neoliberal' any more. For example, in an online survey of the readers of Andrew Norton's blog, out of more than 1,200 participants not a single person self-identified with the term, while 'classical liberal,' 'conservative,' and 'libertarian' were strong responses. These are strange debates indeed when the enemy you are fighting claims he does not exist.

Q76. The author implies:

• A. That neoliberalism defies conceptualization
• B. That neoliberalism is vague
• C. That neoliberalism has not been accepted
• D. That neoliberalism has not been understood by people

Hint:

Combine what paragraphs two and three both say about confusion over the term.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

This is an "author implies" question, which asks you to find the conclusion the author is building toward across the passage rather than a single stated fact.

1. A. That neoliberalism defies conceptualization: this is close to what paragraph two says, neoliberalism cannot be too clearly defined as a concept. But this option only covers the definitional confusion, it says nothing about why that confusion exists or about the behaviour described in paragraph three, where the very people accused of holding these views refuse to accept the label.
2. B. That neoliberalism is vague: this is also grounded in paragraph two, since the passage calls neoliberalism a broad umbrella under which very different groups with various points of view can meet. Like option A, though, it only addresses the definition problem and leaves out the identity confusion the author spends the whole third paragraph describing.
3. C. That neoliberalism has not been accepted: the passage is not really about acceptance or rejection of neoliberalism as a policy, it is about confusion over what the label even means and who it applies to. This option shifts the discussion to approval, which is not the author's point.
4. D. That neoliberalism has not been understood by people: paragraph two says the lack of a clear definition may also explain the lack of any clear and coherent definition of neoliberalism among its dissenters, and paragraph three shows that even people accused of being neoliberal do not recognize themselves in the label, insisting they are liberal, classical liberal, or libertarian instead, or claiming to be misunderstood by their opponents. Taken together, both paragraphs are really describing one wider problem, that neither the critics nor the people being labelled actually have a shared, accurate understanding of what neoliberalism means.

Options A and B each capture only half of this picture, the definitional vagueness, while option D is the fuller implication that ties the vague definition and the mutual mislabelling together into one idea, that people, both the accusers and the accused, do not really understand the term. That is why it is the strongest and most complete inference.

Let's summarize:

• "Implies" questions often have close distractors that capture only part of the passage's logic.
• Here the author uses both the undefined concept and the misunderstood self-identification to make the same broader point.

The correct answer is option D, that neoliberalism has not been understood by people.