Reading comprehension—best supported inference (economics of smuggling): The passage notes enormous profits in smuggling, attraction of hundreds to this anti-national activity, a vast coastline enabling impunity, and that seizures occur but smugglers still make huge profits. Which statement is best supported?

Given data

• Smuggling yields enormous profits and attracts many people.
• India's long coastline enables smugglers to act with impunity.
• Despite occasional seizures, smugglers still make huge profits.

Concept / ApproachSelect the inference that aligns with the passage's normative thrust against a harmful, anti-national, lucrative activity.

Step-by-step reasoningStep 1: The passage frames smuggling as anti-national and thriving—thus undesirable.Step 2: Option B (“ought to be curbed”) is the natural conclusion.Step 3: Option A (economic development) is plausible but not explicitly drawn. Option C contradicts “impunity.” Option D asserts “fast increasing,” which is not stated.

Verification / AlternativeGiven the harms and impunity described, policy logic dictates curbing the activity—hence B.

Common pitfalls

• Choosing a plausible but unstated economic impact (A) or an unproven trend (D).

Final AnswerSmuggling ought to be curbed.