Read the following passage and answer the question below.
"Since power is itself a value, forms of influence which include power in their scope are usually themselves forms of power. The king's mistress, though she has only influence, not power, over the king, may have power over his subjects in the degree of that influence. Forms of influence based on power are themselves forms of power only if the scope of the influence is included within that of the power in question. The king may exercise influence over standards of morality, say, by virtue of his power position, but he does not necessarily exercise power over morality."
Which combination of the following statements best summarises the idea expressed in the paragraph?
Strength of an influence determines its power.
Influence always contributes power to the wielder of influence beyond the scope of influence.
Proximity to authority is itself a source of power.
Forms of influence are power only if they can influence behaviour.

Question

The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
For early postcolonial literature, the world of the novel was often the nation. Postcolonial novels were usually [concerned with] national questions. Sometimes the whole story of the novel was taken as an allegory of the nation, whether India or Tanzania. This was important for supporting anti-colonial nationalism, but could also be limiting - land-focused and inward looking.
My new book "Writing Ocean Worlds" explores another kind of world of the novel: not the village or nation, but the Indian Ocean world. The book describes a set of novels in which the Indian Ocean is at the centre of the story. It focuses on the novelists Amitav Ghosh, Abdulrazak Gurnah, Lindsey Collen and Joseph Conrad [who have] centred the Indian Ocean world in the majority of their novels. . . Their work reveals a world that is outward-looking full of movement, border-crossing and south-south interconnection. They are all very different - from colonially inclined (Conrad) to radically anti-capitalist (Collen), but together draw on and shape a wider sense of Indian Ocean space through themes, images, metaphors and language. This has the effect of remapping the world in the reader's mind, as centred in the interconnected global south. ... The Indian Ocean world is a term used to describe the very long-lasting connections among the coasts of East Africa, the Arab coasts, and South and East Asia.
These connections were made possible by the geography of the Indian Ocean. For much of history, travel by sea was much easier than by land, which meant that port cities very far apart were often more easily connected to each other than to much closer inland cities. Historical and archaeological evidence suggests that what we now call globalisation first appeared in the Indian Ocean. This is the interconnected oceanic world referenced and produced by the novels in my book. For their part Ghosh, Gurnah, Collen and even Conrad reference a different set of histories and geographies than the ones most commonly found in fiction in English. Those [commonly found ones] are mostly centred in Europe or the US, assume a background of Christianity and whiteness, and mention places like Paris and New York. The novels in [my] book highlight instead a largely Islamic space, feature characters of colour and centralise the ports of Malindi, Mombasa, Aden, Java and Bombay. . . . It is a densely imagined, richly sensory image of a southern cosmopolitan culture which provides for an enlarged sense of place in the world.
This remapping is particularly powerful for the representation of Africa. In the fiction, sailors and travellers are not all European. . . African, as well as Indian and Arab characters, are traders, nakhodas (dhow ship captains), runaways, villains, missionaries and activists. This does not mean that Indian Ocean Africa is romanticised. Migration is often a matter of force; travel is portrayed as abandonment rather than adventure, freedoms are kept from women and slavery is rife. What it does mean is that the African part of the Indian Ocean world plays an active role in its long, rich history and therefore in that of the wider world.

Answer 1

The passage's rule is this: an influence becomes a form of power only when its scope, its reach, is contained within the scope of the power being talked about. The king's influence over morality never becomes power over morality because morality is bigger than what his position controls.

Strength of an influence determines its power: reading "strength" as the reach of the influence, this is just the passage's rule in other words, the wider or narrower reach of the influence decides whether, and how far, it counts as power.
Influence always contributes power to the wielder beyond the scope of influence: the passage never says influence spills over its own scope automatically, it says the opposite, that influence is power only inside the matching scope. This statement flips the passage's rule around.
Proximity to authority is itself a source of power: the mistress example directly rejects this. Her power over the subjects tracks the actual degree of influence she exercises, not how close she physically or socially sits to the king. Closeness by itself gives nothing.
Forms of influence are power only if they can influence behaviour: this is the same rule stated in terms of outcomes, an influence only turns into power when it can actually shape what people do within the relevant domain, which is exactly why the king's influence over morality does not amount to power over morality.

Statements 1 and 4 both restate the passage's rule correctly, while 2 and 3 contradict it, so the best combination is "1, 4".

Let's summarize:

Influence becomes power only when its reach matches the scope of the power in question.
Nearness to authority and automatic spillover of influence are both explicitly ruled out by the passage's own example.

So the correct choice is option C, "1, 4".

Answer 2

The passage's rule is this: an influence becomes a form of power only when its scope, its reach, is contained within the scope of the power being talked about. The king's influence over morality never becomes power over morality because morality is bigger than what his position controls.

Strength of an influence determines its power: reading "strength" as the reach of the influence, this is just the passage's rule in other words, the wider or narrower reach of the influence decides whether, and how far, it counts as power.
Influence always contributes power to the wielder beyond the scope of influence: the passage never says influence spills over its own scope automatically, it says the opposite, that influence is power only inside the matching scope. This statement flips the passage's rule around.
Proximity to authority is itself a source of power: the mistress example directly rejects this. Her power over the subjects tracks the actual degree of influence she exercises, not how close she physically or socially sits to the king. Closeness by itself gives nothing.
Forms of influence are power only if they can influence behaviour: this is the same rule stated in terms of outcomes, an influence only turns into power when it can actually shape what people do within the relevant domain, which is exactly why the king's influence over morality does not amount to power over morality.

Statements 1 and 4 both restate the passage's rule correctly, while 2 and 3 contradict it, so the best combination is "1, 4".

Let's summarize:

Influence becomes power only when its reach matches the scope of the power in question.
Nearness to authority and automatic spillover of influence are both explicitly ruled out by the passage's own example.

So the correct choice is option C, "1, 4".

Over Number	Run Rate
N-2	8.00
N	7.43
N+2	8.11
N+4	8.45
N+6	8.08

Show Hint

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

Questions Asked in XAT exam