GRE Reading Comprehension Questions For Practice

PASSAGE 1
Among those who call themselves socialists, two kinds of persons may be distinguished. They
are, in the first place, those who plan for a new order of society, in which private property and
individual competition are to be superseded and other motives to action substituted, are on the
scale of a village community or township, and would be applied to an entire country by the
multiplication of such self-acting unit; of this character are the systems of Owen, of Fourier, and
the more thoughtful and philosophic socialists generally.

The other class, which is more a product of the continent than of Great Britain and may be called
the revolutionary socialists, has people who propose to themselves a much bolder stroke. Their
scheme is the management of the whole productive resources of the country by one central
authority, the general government.

And with this view some of them avow as their purpose that the working classes, or somebody on
their behalf, should take possession of all the property of the country, and administer it for the
general benefit.

Whatever may be the difficulties of the first of these two forms of socialism, the second must
evidently involve the same difficulties and many more. The former, too has the great advantage
that it can be brought into operation progressively and can prove its capabilities by trial, it can be
tried first on a select population and extended to others as their education and cultivation permit.
It need not, and in the natural order of things would not, become an engine of subversion until it
had shown itself capable of being also a means of reconstruction.

It is not so with the other: the aim of that is to substitute the new rule for the old at a single stroke,
and to exchange the amount of good realized under the present system, and its large possibilities
for a plunge without any preparation into the most extreme form of the problem of carrying on the
whole round of the operations of social life without the motive power which has always hitherto
worked the social machinery.

It must be acknowledged that those who would play this game on the strength of their own private
opinion, unconfirmed as yet by any experimental verification – who would forcibly deprive all who
have now a comfortable physical existence of their only present means of preserving it, and
would brave the frightful bloodshed and misery that would ensue if the attempt was resisted-must
have a serene confidence in their own wisdom on the one hand and the recklessness of other
peoples’ suffering on the other, which Roberspierre and St. Just, hitherto the typical instances of
those united attributes, scarcely came up to.

Nevertheless this scheme has great elements of popularity which the more cautious and
reasonable form of socialism has not; because what it professes to do, it promises to do quickly
and holds out hope to the enthusiastic seeing the whole of their aspirations realized in their own
time and at a blow.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS - SELECT ONE ANSWER CHOICE

1. The word ‘avow’ in the context of the passage means
(a) promise (b) vow (c) affirm (d) deny (e) proclaim

2. According to the author, the difference between the two kinds of socialists is that
(a) One consists of thinkers and the others are active people
(b) The first have a definite philosophy and the second don’t have any definite philosophy
(c) The first are planners and the second are doers
(d) The first are the products of Britain, while the other is products of Russia
(e) The first believe in gradual change while the others believe in revolutionary change

3. According to the philosophy of revolutionary socialism
(a) The government takes over the villages first, and then gradually the whole country.
(b) The government takes over all productive resources of the country at one stroke.
(c) The government declares a police state and rules by decree.
(d) There is no government as such; the people rule themselves by the socialist doctrine.
(e) The government establishes a cooperative in every village for good administration.

4. It may be inferred from the passage that the author’s sympathies are for
(a) neither side (b) the side of the socialist doctrine
(c) the second type of socialism (d) the first type of socialism
(e) none of the above

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS – SELECT ONE OR MORE ANSWER CHOICES

5. Who among of the following is a socialist?
(a) Robespierre (b) Fourier (c) None are socialists

6. Which of the following according to the author, may be the result of not verifying the
desirability of socialism experimentally first?
(a) Bloodshed (b) Deprivation of current comfortable existence
(c) Misery caused by resisting the change

SELECT –IN-PASSAGE QUESTIONS

7. Select the sentence that establishes that the second form of socialism has more difficulties
than the first.
(a) Whatever may be the difficulties of the first of these two forms of socialism, the second
must evidently involve the same difficulties and many more.
(b) The former, too has the great advantage that it can be brought into operation
progressively and can prove its capabilities by trial, it can be tried first on a select population and
extended to others as their education and cultivation permit.
(c) It need not, and in the natural order of things would not, become an engine of subversion
until it had shown itself capable of being also a means of reconstruction.

8. Select the sentence that establishes that unconcern for other’s suffering and full
confidence in own wisdom as characteristics of St. Just and Robespierre.
(a) Nevertheless this scheme has great elements of popularity which the more cautious and
reasonable form of socialism has not; because what it professes to do, it promises to do quickly
and holds out hope to the enthusiastic seeing the whole of their aspirations realized in their own
time and at a blow.
(b) It must be acknowledged that those who would play this game on the strength of their own
private opinion, unconfirmed as yet by any experimental verification – who would forcibly deprive
all who have now a comfortable physical existence of their only present means of preserving it,
and would brave the frightful bloodshed and misery that would ensue if the attempt was resisted-
must have a serene confidence in their own wisdom on the one hand and the recklessness of
other peoples’ suffering on the other, which Roberspierre and St. Just, hitherto the typical
instances of those united attributes, scarcely came up to.
(c) It need not, and in the natural order of things would not, become an engine of subversion
until it had shown itself capable of being also a means of reconstruction.

PASSAGE 2
Whatever philosophy may be, it is in the world and must relate to it.

It breaks through the shell of the world in order to move into the infinite. But it turns back in order
to find in the finite its always unique historical foundation. It pushes into the furthest horizons
beyond being-in-the-world in order to experience the present in the eternal.

But even the profoundest meditation acquires its meaning by relating back to man’s existence
here and now. Philosophy glimpses the highest criteria, the starry heaven of the possible, and
seeks in the light of the seemingly impossible the way to man’s dignity in the phenomenon of his
empirical existence.

Philosophy addresses itself to individuals. It creates a free community of those who rely on each
other in their will for truth into this community the philosophic man would like to enter. It is there in
the world all the time, but cannot become a worldly institution without losing freedom of its truth.
He cannot know whether he belongs to it.

No authority decides on his acceptance. He wants to live in his thinking in such a way as to make
his acceptance possible. But how does the world relate to philosophy? There are chairs of
philosophy at the universities.

Now-a-days they are an embarrassment. Philosophy is politely respected because of tradition,
but despised in secret. The general opinion is: it has nothing of importance to say. Neither has it
any practical value. It is named in public but does it really exist? Its existence is proved at least by
the defense measures it provokes.

We can see this in the form of comments like: Philosophy is too complicated. I don’t understand it.
It’s beyond me. It’s something for professionals. I have no gift for it. Therefore it doesn’t concern
me. But that is like saying I don’t need to bother work or scholarship without thinking or
questioning its meaning and, for the rest, have ‘opinions’ and be content with that.

The defense becomes fanatical. A benighted vital instinct hates philosophy. It is dangerous. If I
understood it I would have to change my life. I would find myself in another frame of mind, see
everything in a different light, and have to judge anew.

Better now think philosophically! Then there are the accusers, who want to replace the obsolete
philosophy by something new and totally different. It is mistrusted as the utterly mendacious end
product of a bankrupt theology.

The meaninglessness of philosophical propositions is made fun of. Philosophy is denounced as
the willing handmaiden of political and other powers. For many politicians, their wretched trade
would be easier if philosophy did not exist at all. Masses and functionaries are easier to
manipulate when they do not think but only have a regimented intelligence.

People must be prevented from becoming serious. Therefore, it is better for philosophy to be
boring. Let that chairs of philosophy rot. The more piffle is taught, the sooner people will be
blinkered against the light of philosophy.

Thus philosophy is surrounded by enemies, most of whom are not conscious of being such.
Bourgeois complacency, conventionality the satisfactions of economic prosperity, the
appreciation of science only for its technical achievements, the absolute will to power, the
bonhomie of politicians, the fanaticism of ideologies, the literary self-assertiveness of talented
writers-in all these things people parade their anti-philosophy.

They do notice it because they do not realize what they are doing. They are unaware that their
anti-philosophy in itself a philosophy, but a perverted one, and that this anti-philosophy, if
elucidated, would annihilate itself.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS - SELECT ONE ANSWER CHOICE

9. A suitable title for the passage would be:
(a) Man and Philosophy (b) Philosophical Angst
(c) The Philosophical Debate (d) The Enemies of Philosophy
(e) A Defense of Philosophy

10. The word ‘chairs’ in the context of the passage, means:
(a) wooden-faced people (b) departments
(c) separate chairs for philosophers (d) reserved seats for students of philosophy
(e) luxurious sofas

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS – SELECT ONE OR MORE ANSWER CHOICES

11. Which of the following is false, keeping the passage in the mind?
(a) Philosophy is evidently respected (b) Philosophy is secretly despised
(c) Philosophy is universally admired

12. Which is the following is a charge against philosophy?
(a) That it is obsolete (b) That it is mendacious
(c) That it is immoral

13. Which is the following is mentioned as a function of philosophy in the passage?
(a) It shows the way to man’s dignity in the face of his empirical existence
(b) It breaks through the shell of the world in order to move into the infinite
(c) It makes the world a better place to live in

SELECT –IN-PASSAGE QUESTIONS

14. Select the sentence that establishes the existence of Philosophy.
(a) Whatever philosophy may be, it is in the world and must relate to it.
(b) It breaks through the shell of the world in order to move into the infinite.
(c) Thus philosophy is surrounded by enemies, most of whom are not conscious of being
such.

15. Select the sentence that establishes that politicians would be happy in the absence of
Philosophy.
(a) Thus philosophy is surrounded by enemies, most of whom are not conscious of being
such.
(b) Philosophy is denounced as the willing handmaiden of political and other powers.
(c) For many politicians, their wretched trade would be easier if philosophy did not exist at all.