उपर्युक्त परिच्छेद के सन्दर्भ में, निम्नलिखित पूर्वधारणाएँ बनाई गई हैं :
भारत में कृषि और ग़ैर-कृषि अर्थव्यवस्था के बीच बढ़ते हुए अंतर को निम्नलिखित में से किसके/किनके द्वारा रोका/कम किया जा सकता था ?
- I.बड़े पैमाने पर वाणिज्यिक फ़सलों की कृषि और लाभप्रद निगम कृषि (कॉर्पोरेट फार्मिंग) को अनुकूलित करना ।
- II.सभी फ़सलों के लिए निःशुल्क बीमा उपलब्ध कराना और बीजों, उर्वरकों, बिजली और कृषि मशीनों में विकसित देशों के समान भारी उपदान (सब्सिडी) प्रदान करना ।
उपर्युक्त पूर्वधारणाओं में से कौन-सी वैध है/हैं ?
Read this question in English
With reference to the passage, the following assumptions have been made:
The growing divergence between the fortunes of the agricultural and non-agricultural economy in India could have been reduced/contained by:
I. adapting large-scale cultivation of commercial crops and viable corporate farming.
II. providing free insurance for all crops and heavily subsidizing seeds, fertilizers, electricity and farm machinery at par with developed countries.
Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?
(a) I only · (b) II only · (c) Both I and II · (d) Neither I nor II
उत्तर और व्याख्या · explanation in English
Answer: (d) न तो I और न ही II
The passage only records the widening gap between agricultural and non-agricultural growth; it neither diagnoses causes nor suggests remedies. Both statements are specific policy prescriptions, so neither is an assumption the author makes.
- ✗ I The passage offers no remedy for the divergence. Commercial crops and corporate farming are solutions the reader brings in, not something the author relies on.
- ✗ II Free crop insurance and subsidies 'at par with developed countries' are detailed policy prescriptions. Nothing in the passage discusses insurance, subsidies or developed countries.
Remember · If a passage only describes a trend, any assumption offering a specific cure is almost always invalid.
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). ·