The conflict between man and State is as old as State history. Although attempts have been made for centuries to bring about a proper adjustment between the competing claims of State and the individual, the solution seems to be still far off. This is primarily because of the dynamic nature of human society where old values and ideas constantly yield place to new ones. It is obvious that if individuals are allowed to have absolute freedom of speech and action, the result would be chaos, ruin and anarchy. The author's viewpoint can be best summed up in which of the following statements?

The author's viewpoint is best summed up by option A because the passage explicitly states, "the solution seems to be still far off" regarding the proper adjustment between the competing claims of State and the individual. This directly indicates that the conflict remains unresolved. Analysis of options: A) The conflict between the claims of State and individual remains unresolved: This accurately reflects the passage's core message, particularly the statement "the solution seems to be still far off." The entire text discusses the ongoing nature of this historical conflict without a definitive resolution. B) Anarchy and chaos are the obvious results of democratic traditions: The passage attributes chaos to "absolute freedom of speech and action," not specifically to "democratic traditions." It's a consequence of unchecked individual liberty, not democracy itself. C) Old values, ideas and traditions persist despite the dynamic nature of human society: The passage states the opposite: "old values and ideas constantly yield place to new ones." This option directly contradicts the text. D) Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech is not in the interest of society: The passage warns against "absolute freedom of speech and action," implying that *unfettered* freedom leads to chaos. It does not argue against a *constitutional guarantee* which typically comes with reasonable restrictions, but rather against freedom without any limits. This option is an overgeneralization and misrepresents the author's nuanced point.