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

A different way in is to isolate exactly what work the phrase "when they had not eaten for three days" is doing in the sentence, since a quote like this usually turns on one sharp detail.

That detail sits right next to "talking about books and an education", so the sentence is built to make readers notice the gap between severe hunger and a continued interest in learning. The passage is not arguing that education requires comfort, and it is not arguing that poor people should avoid books, since both of those readings contradict the admiring tone toward the women.

What the detail does support is the simple, direct claim that people can and do care about books and education even while going hungry, which is exactly the idea in option B.

So the correct answer is B.

Answer 2

A third way to check is to ask what the author is trying to persuade the reader of, since a Nobel lecture like this is built to make an argument, not just describe a scene.

Lessing places two images side by side on purpose: comfortable people "stuffed full of food" and "stifling" in excess, against hungry women still discussing books. The persuasive point only works if the reader accepts that the hungry women's interest in books is real and admirable despite their hunger, since that contrast is what "may yet define us" refers to.

Options that claim poor people should avoid books, or that comfort is a requirement for valuing education, both undercut the very contrast the author is building, while the claim that hungry people can still care about books and education is exactly what makes the author's persuasive point land.

So the correct answer is B.