On the basis of the passage given above, the following assumptions have been made:
- 1.People who are obsessed with personal hygiene tend to ignore the community hygiene.
- 2.Emergence of multi-drug resistant germs can be prevented by personal cleanliness.
- 3.Entry of the market in the domain of hygiene increases the risk of infectious diseases.
- 4.Scientific and micro-level interventions are not sufficient to bring down the burden of infectious diseases.
- 5.It is community hygiene implemented through public health measures that is really effective in the battle against infectious diseases.
Which of the above assumptions are valid?
Answer & explanation
Answer: (c) 4 and 5 only
The passage grants that personal cleanliness helps, but credits the big fall in infections in Western Europe to clean water, sanitation and food security alongside it, and warns that market-driven hygiene gives a false sense of security. So personal, micro-level steps are not enough (4), and community-level public health measures are what really work (5).
- ✗ 1. The passage says the market creates 'a false sense of security'; it never says hygiene-obsessed people ignore community hygiene.
- ✗ 2. The passage links the obsession with hand hygiene to 'the emergence of resistant germs' — the opposite of prevention.
- ✗ 3. The market creates a false sense of security; the passage does not say its entry raises the risk of infection.
- ✓ 4. Personal hygiene alone did not do the job in Western Europe; 'general improvements in environmental conditions' were needed — so product-based, individual measures are insufficient.
- ✓ 5. The fall in infant/child infection rates came with clean water, sanitation and food security — community-level, public health measures.
Remember · When a passage says 'along with X, Y brought the result', the valid assumption is that X alone is not enough.
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper II (2021, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). ·