In the light of the argument in the above passage, which one of the following statements is the most convincing explanation?

Question

PASSAGE

No Right is absolute, exclusive or inviolable. The Right of personal property, similarly, has to be perceived in the larger context of its assumed legitimacy. The Right of personal property should unite the principle of liberty with that of equality, and both with the principle of cooperation.

In the light of the argument in the above passage, which one of the following statements is the most convincing explanation? 

(a) The Right of personal property is a Natural Right duly supported by statutes and scriptures. 

(b) Personal property is a theft and an instrument of exploitation. The Right of personal property is therefore violative of economic justice. 

(c) The Right of personal property is violative of distributive justice and negates the principle of cooperation. 

(d) The comprehensive idea of economic justice demands that the Right of each person to acquisition of property has to be reconciled with that of others.

Answer 1

(d) (a) is wrong as it negates the basic premise of the passage. According to the passage 'No Right is absolute, exclusive or inviolable whereas 

(a) says that The Right of personal property is a Natural Right. 

(b) is wrong as it presents another extreme stand on Personal property by equating it to theft and an instrument of exploitation. It misses out the assumed legitimacy of the right and does not see it in the context. 

(c) is wrong as it talks about The Right of personal property being violative of distributive justice and negating the principle of cooperation. It does not explain the argument. 

(d) is correct as it clearly explains the argument by mentioning that the Right of each person to acquisition of property has to be reconciled with that of others.Refer the principle of cooperation mentioned in the last sentence.