उपर्युक्त परिच्छेद के संदर्भ में, निम्नलिखित पूर्वधारणाएँ बनाई गई हैं :
- 1.एक संरक्षित क्षेत्र से दूसरे संरक्षित क्षेत्र में स्थान-परिवर्तन हुए वन्य जीव के संरक्षण करने की रणनीति प्रायः सफल नहीं होती है।
- 2.भारत में बाघों की सुरक्षा के लिए उपयुक्त कानून नहीं हैं और इसके संरक्षण के प्रयास असफल हो गए हैं जिसके कारण बाघ संरक्षित क्षेत्रों से बाहर रहने पर बाध्य हैं।
उपर्युक्त में से कौन-सी पूर्वधारणा/पूर्वधारणाएँ वैध है/हैं?
Read this question in English
With reference to the above passage, the following assumptions have been made:
1. The strategy of conservation of wildlife by relocating them from one protected area to another is not often successful.
2. India does not have suitable legislation to save the tigers, and its conservation efforts have failed which forced the tigers to live outside protected areas.
Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?
(a) 1 only · (b) 2 only · (c) Both 1 and 2 · (d) Neither 1 nor 2
उत्तर और व्याख्या · explanation in English
Answer: (a) केवल 1
Why not the tempting option · UPSC's key takes statement 1 as the assumption behind the author's use of the Panna tiger: if relocating tigers between isolated reserves usually worked, one tiger's trek home would not 'highlight a crisis'. A strict reader may object that one case cannot show relocation is 'not often' successful, but in CSAT an assumption is valid when the author's argument leans on it, and this author presents the case as typical. Statement 2 brings in legislation, which the passage never mentions, so (a) is the best answer.
The author offers the relocated tiger's 250-mile trek home as a sign of 'a crisis', which only works if moving tigers between isolated reserves usually does not hold them, which is statement 1. Legislation is never mentioned, and tigers live outside reserves because they range over a hundred miles, not because conservation has failed, so statement 2 is invalid.
- ✓ 1. The tiger moved from Pench to Panna headed back towards home, and the author calls the trek a 'crisis'; using one relocation as a warning assumes such relocations are not often successful.
- ✗ 2. Laws are never mentioned; the passage explains tigers outside reserves by their wide range and by reserves being 'islands' without corridors, not by failed conservation.
Remember · An assumption is what the author must believe to use an example as evidence; claims about laws or failures the passage never raises are invalid.
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper II (2018, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify). ·