With reference to the above passage, the following assumptions have been made:
- I.Path-dependent green investments will eventually most likely benefit growth as well as public finances in a country like India.
- II.If other green technologies follow the same pattern as that of solar energy, there will most likely be an easy green transition.
Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?
Answer & explanation
Answer: (c) Both I and II
Both statements extend the author's own reasoning. The passage holds that early green investment pays off with less disruption and lower cost, which supports I, and it uses the collapse in solar prices as the proof that falling costs make the transition easier, which supports II.
- ✓ I The author says moving early lets economies 'reap the benefits of path-dependent green investment without much disruption' and that a late transition is 'costlier'. Lower cost and less disruption imply gains for growth and for public spending, and the argument is made for economies in general, which includes one like India.
- ✓ II Solar energy is offered as 'the strongest evidence' of the steep learning curve. The author's case assumes that other green technologies can follow the same falling-cost path, which would make the transition smoother.
Remember · Ask: does the author's argument need this to be true? Hedged statements ('most likely') that extend the author's logic are usually valid.
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper II (2025, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). ·