There are a number of ways to interpret this, so let's start with some definitions. The three Chinese philosophical systems mentioned all had something to say about how politics should work. Daoism believed that the ruler who ruled least ruled best: the fewer the laws and the smaller the administration, the better the country would be. Confucianism proposed that a moral ruler should set an example for a harmonious society, and that moral improvements in the citizenry would make for a harmonious state. Also, there was a hierarchy of authority: children should respect parents, subjects should respect rulers, etc. And Legalism taught that the state was best ruled when people's conduct was rigidly controlled through rewards for doing well, and harsh punishments for messing up. The Legalist ruler was essentially a dictator who had to impose his will on people by force.
So now we consider these other figures. I can't what any would suport for sure, but consider what we know of each. Dr. Seuss wrote children's books in which characters were often free to explore and he made fun of authority figures. My guess is we can eliminate two of these political philosophies on that basis. Mohandas Gandhi stood up to British authority in his nonviolent struggle against British rule in India. He advocated the development of local, self-sufficient economic communities that empowered people. He was also a scrupulously moral person. Thomas Hobbes wrote that in a state of nature, humans were brutal to each other, and so society needs a strong ruler, a king, to impose order. And John Locke supported the idea that society worked best when the powers of authority were distributed between different parts of government, and that certain rights were held as inalienable. He also believed in the ability of people to act ethically if society were set up properly.
I'd hate to state exactly which of these figures fits best with each philosophy, but if you take the forgoing as some pointers, you can make your own case.