उपर्युक्त परिच्छेद के सन्दर्भ में, निम्नलिखित पूर्वधारणाएँ बनाई गई हैं :
- I.कंपनियों में पूर्ति-पक्ष निवेश के परिणामस्वरूप लोगों में न्यून-कार्बन व्यवहार आ सकता है ।
- II.लोग सरकार और कंपनियों के शामिल हुए बिना न्यून-कार्बन व्यवहार को अनुकूलित करने में समर्थ नहीं हैं ।
उपर्युक्त पूर्वधारणाओं में से कौन-सी वैध है/हैं ?
Read this question in English
With reference to the above passage, the following assumptions have been made:
I. Supply-side investments in companies can result in low-carbon behaviour in people.
II. People are not capable of adapting low-carbon behaviour without the involvement of Government and Companies.
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: (a) केवल I
The author links cheaper, widely available low-carbon options, created through supply-side investment, to changes in household behaviour, so I is assumed. The passage never says people cannot change without Government and companies; it only says change on the required scale needs their incentives.
- ✓ I The passage says supply-side investments should make low-carbon options 'cheaper and more widely available', and that behavioural change requires such incentives. It takes for granted that supply-side investment can shape people's behaviour.
- ✗ II The passage is about how much of the reduction behaviour can deliver ('at best, half') and what would help it; it does not say individuals are incapable of changing on their own. 'Not capable' is an extreme claim.
Remember · Separate 'needed for large-scale change' from 'people are incapable'; assumptions that turn a practical need into an absolute inability are 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). ·