Isaiah Berlin distinguished 'negative liberty' (freedom from interference) from 'positive liberty' (self-mastery, autonomy). He worried that positive liberty could become tyrannical: if your 'true self' wants X but your actual self wants Y, authoritarian rulers might claim to liberate your 'true self' by overriding your actual choices. Yet critics note that purely negative liberty ignores conditions enabling meaningful choice—formal freedom matters little without resources to exercise it.
It can be inferred from the text that
Berlin had no concerns about any conception of liberty
negative liberty can never be abused by authoritarian regimes
different conceptions of liberty may each capture valuable aspects while risking problematic applications
resources have no relationship to meaningful freedom
Correct Answer: C
Choice C is the best answer. Both conceptions have value and problems.
- Context clues: Positive liberty can become tyrannical; negative liberty ignores enabling conditions.
- Meaning: Each conception captures something but has vulnerabilities.
- Verify: Berlin's worry about positive and critics' concern about negative show both have issues.
💡 Strategy: When both sides of a distinction have identified virtues and risks, infer balanced assessment.
Choice A is incorrect because Berlin worried positive liberty "could become tyrannical." Choice B is incorrect because the passage focuses on positive liberty's abuse, but doesn't claim negative is abuse-proof. Choice D is incorrect because critics note conditions for "meaningful choice" including resources.