Question

Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

The ignorant man is not the unlearned, but he who does not know himself, and the learned man is stupid when he relies on books, on knowledge and on authority to give him understanding. Understanding comes only through self-knowledge, which is awareness of one's total psychological process. Thus education, in the true sense, is the understanding of oneself, for it is within each one of us that the whole of existence is gathered. What we now call education is a matter of accumulating information and knowledge from books, which anyone can do who can read. Such education offers a subtle form of escape from ourselves and, like all escapes, it inevitably creates increasing misery. Conflict and confusion result from our own wrong relationship with people, things and ideas, and until we understand that relationship and alter it, mere learning, the gathering of facts and the acquiring of various skills, can only lead us to engulfing chaos and destruction. As society is now organized, we send our children to school to learn some technique by which they can eventually earn a livelihood. We want to make the child first and foremost a specialist, hoping thus to give him a secure economic position. But does the cultivation of a technique enable us to understand ourselves? While it is obviously necessary to know how to read and write, and to learn engineering or some other profession, will technique give us the capacity to understand life? Surely, technique is secondary; and if technique is the only thing we are striving for, we are obviously denying what is by far the greater part of life. Life is pain, joy, beauty, ugliness, love, and when we understand it as a whole, at every level, that understanding creates its own technique. But the contrary is not true: technique can never bring about creative understanding. Present-day education is a complete failure because it has overemphasized technique. In overemphasizing technique we destroy man. To cultivate capacity and efficiency without understanding life, without having a comprehensive perception of the ways of thought and desire, will only make us increasingly ruthless, which is to engender wars and jeopardize our physical security. The exclusive cultivation of technique has produced scientists, mathematicians, bridge Iwiracrarspace conquerors; but do they understand the total process of life? Can any specialist experience life as a whole? Only when he ceases to be a specialist. Technological progress does solve certain kinds of problems for some people at one level, but it introduces wider and deeper issues too. To live at one level, disregarding the total process of life, is to invite misery and destruction. The greatest need and most pressing problem for even individual is to have an integrated comprehension of life, which will enable him to meet its ever-increasing complexities. Technical knowledge, however necessary, will in no way resolve our inner, psychological pressures and conflict; and it is because we have acquired technical knowledge without understanding the total process of life that technology has become a means of destroying ourselves. The man who knows how to split the atom but has no love in his heart becomes a monster. We choose a vocation according to our capacities; but will the following of a vocation lead us out of conflict and confusion? Some form of technical training seems necessary; but when we have become engineers, physicians, accountants- then what? Is the practice of a profession the fulfilment of life? Apparently with most of us it is. Our various professions may keep us busy for the greater part of our existence; but the very things that we produce and are so entranced with are causing destruction and misery. Our attitudes and values make of things and occupations the instruments of envy, bitterness and hate.



The passage implies that:

• A. Technique follows creative understanding.
• B. A specialist too can enjoy life as a whole.
• C. Technology necessarily leads to destruction and misery.
• D. None of the above.

Hint:

Check each option against the passage's exact wording, not just its general theme. Watch for options that drop a key condition or turn a "can" into a "must".

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
We need to pick the statement that the passage truly implies. A safe way to do this is to scan each option for an absolute word (such as "necessarily," "too," or a dropped condition) and test it against the author's actual sentence.

Step 2: Key Approach:
Go option by option and find the one line in the passage each option is based on, then check if the option keeps the same condition as that line or loosens it.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Option 1 rests on "understanding creates its own technique," but this only holds when someone understands life "as a whole, at every level." Stated as a bare rule about "creative understanding," it goes beyond what the author says.
Option 2 fails outright: the author writes that a specialist can experience life as a whole "only when he ceases to be a specialist," which is a direct denial of the option.
Option 3 uses the word "necessarily," but the passage treats destruction as something technology "introduces" as a risk, alongside solving "certain kinds of problems," not as a guaranteed result.
Option 4 borrows the atom line but removes its condition, "has no love in his heart," turning a conditional warning into an automatic outcome.
Because each option either overreaches or contradicts the text, none survives a careful check.

Step 4: Final Answer:
The passage does not support any of the four specific claims once their conditions are checked, so the answer is option 4, None of the above.