The essay initially pretends to be a critique of a type of self-improvement book popular at the time, which claimed to tell how to achieve success. These books defined success strictly in financial terms and assumed that if anyone follows certain steps, they will be able to duplicate the accomplishments of wealthy business owners. However, Chesterton’s review of these books includes a broader social criticism. The focus on the definition of success strictly in terms of money is central to his essay. But wrapped around that issue is the idea that each person can or should perceive success on the same terms as a business leader. He illustrates the point by saying a donkey is successful at being a donkey as much as a millionaire is successful at being a millionaire, so there is no point in calling a donkey a failed millionaire or vice versa.
Chesterton’s purpose is to encourage people to rethink their definition of success, which is often equated with material wealth and social position. He rejects this kind of success as opposing moral values and encouraging greed, as well as assuming that everyone starts from the same point and should have the same goal.
Chesterton highlights the incorrect ideas of these books to show how they influence people. For instance, one such book uses the example of King Midas to describe a successful person. Chesterton uses the fable to show that King Midas was a prime example of foolishness. He says that the example of a so-called successful person in the book is only a slave to moneymaking and greed. The books have a negative effect on society, as they glorify greed and pride.
The paragraph is talking about how this person likes taking their time by admiring the nature around them. The opposite phrase of that is A, because the bicyclists are not taking thier time actually looking at nature instead they are bicycling through it. That's what I think.
