“In simple matters like shoe-making, we think only a specially trained person will serve our purpose, but in politics we presume that everyone who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a State. When we are ill, we call for a trained physician, whose degree is a guarantee of specific preparation and technical competence—we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one: well then, when the whole State is ill should we not look for the service and guidance of the wisest and the best?”

Question: Which one of the following statements best reflects the message of the author of the passage?

The correct option is: We need to devise a method of barring incompetence from public office.

Step-by-Step Explanation:

1. Analyzing the Analogies:
The author uses two everyday examples to make a point about expertise:
- For shoe-making, we trust only a specially trained person.
- For illness, we seek a trained physician whose degree guarantees technical competence, rather than someone who is simply handsome or eloquent.

2. Identifying the Contrast with Politics:
The author contrasts these practical fields with politics, highlighting a major inconsistency: in politics, we assume that anyone who is good at gathering votes is automatically qualified to administer a State. This suggests that the current system allows individuals without proper training or competence to take office simply because they are popular or persuasive.

3. Determining the Core Message:
The passage concludes with a rhetorical question: "...when the whole State is ill should we not look for the service and guidance of the wisest and the best?" This emphasizes the necessity of having highly competent, wise, and trained administrators for the State, just as we do for healthcare. Therefore, the author's primary message is that we must establish a way to ensure public administrators are qualified, which effectively means devisng a method to bar incompetence from public office.