In the following item, a passage about the rules governing pesticides is jumbled. The passage consists of six sentences with S1 and S6 fixed at the beginning and the end. The four middle sentences labelled P, Q, R and S are given in random order. Read the passage and choose the option that gives the correct sequence of P, Q, R and S between S1 and S6. S1: There is no doubt that the rules governing imports, manufacture and the use of pesticides need to be further tightened up. S6: At the same time, better pollution control measures are needed to check the discharge of poisonous gases and chemicals by a host of other industries which are equally responsible for poisoning our world. P: But a more practical and feasible approach is required to tackle this problem. Q: No one can deny the importance of pesticides in our agriculture. R: The proposed amendment is an attempt at doing this, but in the process it seems to have gone overboard in most cases. S: Even today, nearly a fourth of our crop is lost due to pests and weeds. The proper sequence should be

Introduction / Context:
This passage discusses the need to tighten rules on pesticides while acknowledging their importance in agriculture. The fixed first and last sentences frame the issue of regulation and broader pollution control. The middle sentences must balance the benefits of pesticides with the need for practical and feasible rules and refer to a proposed amendment that may have gone too far.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• S1: States that rules on pesticide imports, manufacture and use need to be tightened.
• S6: Calls for better pollution control for many other industries as well.
• Q: Emphasises that no one can deny the importance of pesticides in agriculture.
• S: States that nearly a fourth of crops are still lost to pests and weeds.
• P: Says that a more practical and feasible approach is needed to tackle this problem.
• R: Mentions a proposed amendment that attempts to tighten rules but may have gone overboard.
• We assume the author first stresses the usefulness of pesticides and existing crop losses, then calls for a practical approach, and finally evaluates the proposed amendment.

Concept / Approach:
To order the sentences:

• After S1, reassure the reader that pesticides are important so that the call for tighter rules does not sound extreme.
• Support that importance with data about crop loss.
• Then state that the approach to tightening rules must be practical and feasible.
• Finally, introduce and evaluate the proposed amendment before moving to the broader pollution context in S6.

The structure is a balanced argument: need for regulation, recognition of benefits, call for practicality, and critique of the current proposal.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: S1 focuses on tightening rules for pesticides. Immediately after that, it is natural to assure the reader that the author does not ignore the usefulness of pesticides. Sentence Q exactly does this by stating, “No one can deny the importance of pesticides in our agriculture.” Therefore Q follows S1. Step 2: To reinforce the importance of pesticides, we present evidence of ongoing crop damage. Sentence S states that even today nearly a fourth of our crop is lost due to pests and weeds. This supports Q and shows why pesticides remain necessary. Step 3: Now the passage can move to the question of how to regulate pesticides sensibly. Sentence P says that a more practical and feasible approach is required to tackle the problem of tightening rules without harming agricultural needs. P therefore follows S. Step 4: The next logical step is to discuss the specific proposed amendment. Sentence R says the amendment attempts to tighten rules but goes overboard in many cases. This concludes the discussion of pesticide regulation before S6 shifts the focus to other industries. Step 5: Thus the middle sentences must appear in the order Q S P R.

Verification / Alternative check:
Reading the passage with Q, S, P and R between S1 and S6, the argument is balanced and clear. The author begins by calling for tighter rules, then acknowledges the importance of pesticides, supports this with crop loss statistics, insists on a practical regulatory approach, and finally criticises an amendment that may be excessive. S6 then reminds us that other industries also pollute and must be controlled. The flow of ideas is logical and persuasive.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
R P S Q: This jumps straight to the proposed amendment before acknowledging pesticide importance and crop losses. It also introduces the idea of going overboard before explaining why pesticides are still needed.
R Q S P: Here the proposed amendment precedes any discussion of importance and crop loss, making the critique feel premature.
P R S Q and similar orders either put the call for practicality before giving data on crop losses or mention the amendment before establishing context. They do not build the argument in a clear and convincing way.

Common Pitfalls:
A frequent mistake in such argument based jumbled passages is to focus only on the sentence that directly mentions an “amendment” and to put it early, thinking it is central. However, good argumentation always lays out context and evidence before evaluating specific proposals. Students should watch for sentences that anchor the debate (like importance and crop loss) and place them before evaluative comments about proposed changes.

Final Answer:
The correct sequence is Q S P R, so the correct option is “Q S P R”.