We need to find which statement the author would support about political power. The key is understanding the author's main argument about truth vs fiction in politics. From passage: "the truth is often painful and disturbing. Hence if you stick to unalloyed reality, few people will follow you. An American presidential candidate who tells the American public the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about American history has a 100 percent guarantee of losing the elections." The author's core argument -> Truth doesn't win elections -> Fiction is better for gaining political power -> People prefer comforting lies over harsh realities.

Elimination process: 🟢 **Option 1** -> correct -> "people cannot handle the unvarnished truth, so leaders retain power by deviating from it" -> This matches exactly what the author says. People find truth "painful and disturbing" so leaders who stick to truth lose followers. 🔴 **Option 2** -> contradicts passage -> "leaders should stay as close as possible to it [truth]" -> Author never recommends staying close to truth. In fact, he says fiction has advantages over truth and "uncompromising adherence to truth is not a winning political strategy." 🟠 **Option 3** -> adds ideas not in passage -> talks about "limits" to believing myths -> Author never mentions any limits or boundaries. He actually says fictional stories "routinely triumph over truth." 🟠 **Option 4** -> contradicts passage -> "a leader who propagates only myths is likely to lose power" -> Author suggests the opposite - that fiction gives political advantages and helps unite people effectively. The author clearly supports the idea that people struggle with harsh truths, so successful leaders use fiction instead of reality to gain and keep power.

CAT (VARC) PYQs

Keyboard Shortcuts