Read the following statement carefully: "The byproducts obtained from animals such as hair, skin and horns contain at least 45 per cent food protein. Indian scientists have developed methods to segregate 50 per cent of this protein using an enzyme that was originally developed in Russia for destroying soya proteins." Based on this information, which of the following conclusions is logically valid?

Introduction / Context:
This question is based on a short scientific and economic statement about utilising animal byproducts for protein extraction. The passage mentions the proportion of protein present, the fraction that can currently be segregated, and the use of an enzyme developed in another country. The conclusions ask us to make inferences about the capabilities of Indian scientists and the potential impact of cheaper technology on protein recovery.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Animal byproducts such as hair, skin and horns contain at least 45 per cent food protein.
• Indian scientists have developed methods to segregate 50 per cent of this protein.
• They currently use an enzyme developed in Russia for destroying soya proteins.
• The statement does not claim anything about the inability of Indian scientists to create enzymes.

Concept / Approach:
We must carefully distinguish between what is explicitly stated, what is reasonably implied and what is not implied at all. The fact that Indian scientists use a Russian enzyme does not mean they cannot develop enzymes themselves. At the same time, we know that only half of the protein present is being recovered, so there is room for improvement. A conclusion about the benefit of a cheaper or more efficient method is consistent with this idea of improvement.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: From the statement, each unit of animal byproduct contains at least 45 per cent food protein.Step 2: Current methods segregate 50 per cent of that protein. In other words, only half of the available protein is being recovered for use.Step 3: This implies that a significant proportion of protein in the byproducts remains unused or unrecovered.Step 4: The present method uses a Russian enzyme. This tells us about the source of the enzyme, but nothing about the ability or inability of Indian scientists to develop their own enzyme.Step 5: Therefore, conclusion A, which states that Indian scientists cannot develop enzymes, is not supported and is too extreme. The fact that they choose to use a foreign enzyme does not prove that they lack capability.Step 6: Conclusion B claims that if a suitable and less costly method is developed, much more food protein could be obtained. Since currently only 50 per cent of the available protein is segregated, any method that is more efficient or economically viable could reasonably increase the amount of usable protein.Step 7: This conclusion aligns with the information that there is unused protein in the byproducts and that cost and method limitations are likely reasons for this under utilisation.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine that new technology allows 80 per cent of the protein to be recovered at lower cost. This would directly support the idea of obtaining much more food protein from the same byproducts.No part of the original statement rules out such a scenario. In fact, it implicitly suggests that there is scope for improvement beyond the current 50 per cent recovery.On the other hand, we can imagine Indian scientists developing a new enzyme themselves in the future, which shows that conclusion A is unjustified and not forced by the text.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a assumes a complete lack of capability in Indian scientists, which is not stated and is contradicted by the fact that they have developed sophisticated separation methods.Option c ignores the clear implication that more protein could be obtained with better or cheaper technology.Option d claims both A and B follow, but A does not follow at all.Option e introduces a new claim about human food safety that is not mentioned in the passage.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing the use of foreign technology with a lack of domestic scientific capability.Ignoring the numerical detail that at least half of the protein is still not recovered, which hints at unrealised potential.Drawing conclusions about food safety or policy that go far beyond the scope of the given statement.

Final Answer:
The only conclusion that follows logically is that If a cheaper and suitable method is developed, much more food protein can be obtained from such byproducts.