Question

Consider the following sentences from the Nobel Lecture of the writer Doris Lessing:
"That poor girl trudging through the dust dreaming of an education for her children, do we think that we are better than she is - we, stuffed full of food, our cupboards full of clothes, stifling in our superfluities?
I think it is that girl, and the women who were talking about books and an education when they had not eaten for three days, that may yet define us."
Which of the option(s) is/are implied by the quote?

• A. Poor people should not concentrate on superfluous things like books.
• B. Even poor people who go without food for days may care about books and education.
• C. For people to think about books, they first have to be well fed and clothed.
• D. Excessive consumption (of food and clothing) is superfluous and stifling.

Hint:

When analyzing a quote, identify the central contrast or argument the author is making. Pay close attention to emotionally charged words ("stifling", "superfluities") as they often reveal the author's opinion. Test each option against the explicit statements and the overall tone of the text.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question requires reading comprehension and the ability to draw logical inferences from a given text. We must analyze the author's argument and identify which of the given statements are supported by it.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The quote contrasts two groups: the materially privileged ("we, stuffed full of food...") and the impoverished who still value education ("women who were talking about books... when they had not eaten"). The author suggests the values of the second group are more profound and defining.

A. Poor people should not concentrate on superfluous things like books. The author explicitly holds up the women who value books despite their poverty as an ideal. The quote implies books are not superfluous, but essential. This statement contradicts the main point of the passage. Thus, it is FALSE.
B. Even poor people who go without food for days may care about books and education. This is stated almost directly in the text: "...the women who were talking about books and an education when they had not eaten for three days...". This statement is a direct inference from the text. Thus, it is TRUE.
C. For people to think about books, they first have to be well fed and clothed. The quote provides a powerful counter-argument to this very idea by presenting the example of the starving women who still discuss books. Thus, it is FALSE.
D. Excessive consumption (of food and clothing) is superfluous and stifling. The author describes the privileged as "stuffed full of food, our cupboards full of clothes, stifling in our superfluities." The words "stifling" and "superfluities" directly state that this excessive consumption is unnecessary and oppressive. Thus, it is TRUE.

Step 3: Final Answer:
The options implied by the quote are B and D.

Answer 2

The quote sets up a contrast between two groups: the materially comfortable narrator, "stuffed full of food", and the poor women who kept discussing books even after going without food for three days. Reading the passage as a contrast, rather than sentence by sentence, is the quickest way to test each option.

1. Poor people should not concentrate on superfluous things like books: the passage holds up the hungry women's interest in books as admirable, not wasteful, so this reverses the passage's own point.
2. Even poor people who go without food for days may care about books and education: this restates the contrast directly, since the women "talking about books and an education" had "not eaten for three days", exactly the pairing the passage draws attention to.
3. For people to think about books, they first have to be well fed and clothed: the whole force of the quote is that the starving women discussed books without being fed or clothed well, which is the opposite of this claim.
4. Excessive consumption is superfluous and stifling: the narrator does call their own comfort "stifling" in "superfluities", but this is a side remark about the comfortable group, not the passage's central implied point about who values books.

The passage's central contrast directly implies that even people without food still valued books and learning.

So the correct answer is B.