But now comes a point to which I am inclined to attach very great importance. The new powers were as yet shapeless. It was not the conflict of a new organization with the old. It was the preliminary dwarfing and deliquescence of the mature old beside the embryonic mass of the new. It was impossible then—it is, I believe, only beginning to be possible now—to estimate the proportions, possibilities, and inter-relations of the new social orders out of which a social organization has still to be built in the coming years. No formula of definite reconstruction had been evolved, or has even been evolved yet, after a hundred years. And these swelling inchoate new powers, whose very birth condition was the crippling, modification, or destruction of the old order, were almost forced to formulate their proceedings for a time, therefore, in general affirmative propositions that were really in effect not affirmative propositions at all, but propositions of repudiation and denial. "These kings and nobles and people privileged in relation to obsolescent functions cannot manage our affairs"—that was evident enough, that was the really essential question at that time, and since no other effectual substitute appeared ready made, the working doctrine of the infallible judgment of humanity in the gross, as distinguished from the quite indisputable incapacity of sample individuals, became, in spite of its inherent absurdity, a convenient and acceptable working hypothesis.
Which of the following is a likely true?
Result:
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Option 1: "The newly emerging society eventually would look quite like mob rule."
Explanation: The text discusses the emergence of new social powers that were not yet clearly defined and the incapacity of the old aristocratic monarchy to control these new factors. This suggests that the new society could potentially lead to chaotic governance, resembling mob rule, as the old structures fail to adapt.
Option 2: "The new forms of government would collapse under their absurd forms."
Explanation: While the text mentions the absurdity of the working doctrine of humanity's judgment, it does not explicitly state that new forms of government would collapse. Instead, it suggests that these new powers are still in a formative stage, indicating potential rather than inevitable collapse.
Option 3: "There would likely be widespread repudiation of the new forms of government."
Explanation: The text does mention a repudiation of the old order, but it does not imply that there would be widespread repudiation of the new forms of government. Instead, it suggests that the new powers are still developing and have not yet fully formed a coherent government.
Option 4: "New forms of government would work simultaneously with old forms of government."
Explanation: The text indicates that the new powers are emerging alongside the old order, which is described as increasingly obstructive. This implies that there is a coexistence of new and old forms of government, as the new powers are still in the process of being defined and organized.
Option 5: "It is ruled by public."
Explanation: The text does not support the idea that the new forms of government are ruled by the public. Instead, it highlights the incapacity of the old aristocracy and the undefined nature of the new powers, suggesting that public rule is not yet established.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation