Question

Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

This confusion concerns nothing less than the concept of socialism itself. It may mean, and is often used to describe, merely the ideals of social justice, greater equality and security which are the ultimate aims of socialism. But it means also the particular method by which most socialists hope to attain these ends and which many competent people regard as the only methods by which they can be fully and quickly attained. In this sense socialism means the abolition of private enterprise, of private ownership of the means of production, and the creation of a system of "planned economy" in which the entrepreneur working for profit is replaced by a central planning body. There are many people who call themselves socialists although they care only about the first, who fervently believe in those ultimate aims of socialism but neither care nor understand how they can be achieved, and who are merely certain they must be achieved, whatever the cost. But to nearly all those to whom socialism is not merely a hope but an object of practical politics, the characteristic methods of modern socialism are as essential as the ends themselves. Most people, on the other hand, who value the ultimate ends of socialism no less than the socialists, refuse to support socialism because of the dangers to other values they see in the methods proposed by the socialists. The dispute about socialism has thus become largely a dispute about means and not about ends-although the question whether the different ends of socialism can be simultaneously achieved is also involved. This would be enough to create confusion. And the confusion has been further increased by the common practice of denying that those who repudiate the means value the ends. But this is not all. The situation is still more complicated by the fact that the same means, the "economic planning" which is the prime instrument for socialist reform, can be used for many other purposes. We must centrally direct economic activity if we want to make the distribution of income conform to current ideas of social justice. "Planning", therefore, is wanted by all those who demand that "production for use" be substituted for production for profit. But such planning is no less indispensable if the distribution of incomes is to be regulated in a way which to us appears to be the opposite of just. Whether we should wish that more of the good things of this world should go to some racial elite, the Nordic men, or the members of a party or an aristocracy, the methods which we shall have to employ are the same as those which could ensure an equalitarian distribution. It may, perhaps, seem unfair to use the term socialism to describe its methods rather than its aims, to use for a particular method a term which for many people stand for an ultimate ideal. It is probably preferable to describe the methods which can be used for a great variety of ends as collectivism and to regard socialism as a species of that genus. Yet, although to most socialists only one species of collectivism will represent true socialism, it must always be remembered that socialism is a species of collectivism and that therefore everything which is true for collectivism as such must apply to socialism. Nearly all the points which are disputed between socialists and liberals concerns the methods common to all forms of collectivism and not the particular ends for which the socialists want to use them; and all the consequences with which we shall be concerned in this book follow from the methods of collectivism irrespective of the ends for which they are used. It must also not be forgotten that socialism is not only by far the most important species of collectivism or "planning"; but that it is socialism which has persuaded liberal-minded people to submit once more to that regimentation of economic life which they had overthrown because, in the words of Adam Smith, it puts governments in a position where "to support themselves they are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical".



According to the author, those who agree to the aims of socialism would:

• A. refuse to support socialism because of possible consequences of the methods advocated to achieve those ends.
• B. agree on the collectivisation and centralisation of economic activities since both require strong and powerful governments.
• C. have disagreed if only they had known that the only way to achieve the equalitarian ends of socialism required centralisation and collectivisation of economic activities.
• D. None of the above.

Hint:

The passage splits people who agree with socialism's aims into two opposite camps over the methods, so check whether any single option can cover both.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The question asks what the author says happens to people who agree with socialism's AIMS, meaning goals like social justice, equality, and security, once the METHODS (planning, collectivisation) come into play. The passage splits this group into two very different reactions, so no single option can describe "those who agree to the aims" as one block.

1. Refuse to support socialism because of possible consequences of the methods.: The passage does say this, but only about one subgroup: "Most people ... who value the ultimate ends of socialism no less than the socialists, refuse to support socialism because of the dangers ... they see in the methods." This is true of some people who agree with the aims, not all of them. The passage also describes a different subgroup, committed socialists, who accept the methods as essential. So this cannot be the single correct description of the whole group.
2. Agree on the collectivisation and centralisation of economic activities since both require strong and powerful governments.: The passage never claims that agreeing with socialism's aims automatically means agreeing with centralisation. It draws exactly the opposite contrast for many people.
3. Have disagreed if only they had known that the only way to achieve the equalitarian ends required centralisation and collectivisation.: This assumes people who support socialism's aims do not already know the methods usually proposed, which the passage does not say. It invents a hypothetical the text never raises.
4. None of the above.: Because the passage explicitly splits "those who agree to the aims" into people who insist the methods are essential and people who reject the methods over their dangers, no single statement among the first three fairly represents the whole group. "None of the above" is the only option that respects this split.

Since the passage describes two conflicting reactions within the very group the question asks about, none of the specific descriptions holds for the group as a whole, so "None of the above" is correct.

Let's summarize:

• The passage names two different reactions among people who share socialism's aims: those who see the methods as essential, and those who reject the methods over their dangers.
• Each of the first three options only fits part of this group, not the whole.
• "None of the above" correctly captures that no single description applies to everyone who agrees with the aims.

So the correct answer is "None of the above."