The following four labelled sentences P, Q, R and S, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph about moral principles devised by sages. Select the most logical order.

Introduction / Context:
This para-jumble deals with the idea that principles of propriety and righteousness are not automatic products of human nature, but deliberate creations of sages based on observation and thought. The sentences talk about conscious evolution of behaviour, an analogy of a potter and clay, the sages' observations, and the conclusion that laws and systems come from that thinking. Your task is to arrange these sentences into a logically flowing argument.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- Q: A person’s behaviour evolves through conscious evolution.
- R: When a potter pounds the clay and makes a vessel, it is the product of the artisan’s activity, not of his nature.
- S: The sages observed activities and gathered ideas and thoughts, and thereafter introduced principles of propriety and righteousness and instituted laws and systems.
- P: Therefore, these are products of the thinking by sages and not products of every man’s nature.
- We want an order that first states that behaviour is consciously developed, then uses an analogy, then a description of the sages' role, and finally a concluding statement beginning with “Therefore”.

Concept / Approach:
The sequence should begin with a general statement about behaviour, proceed to an illustrative analogy, explain the sages' process, and then draw a conclusion. Q introduces the idea that behaviour evolves through conscious evolution, not automatic nature. R then presents the analogy of a potter shaping clay to show that some products are results of activity rather than nature. S connects this analogy to sages who carefully observed activities and designed principles and systems. P, which starts with “Therefore”, clearly functions as the concluding sentence, stating that these principles are products of sages' thinking, not of every person's nature. This gives the order Q–R–S–P.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Choose Q as the opening sentence because it states the central idea: behaviour evolves through conscious evolution.
Step 2: Follow with R, which uses the analogy of a potter and clay to illustrate the difference between nature and product of activity.
Step 3: Add S, which applies the analogy to sages, describing how they observed, thought and then created principles and institutions.
Step 4: Conclude with P, which uses “Therefore” to draw the final inference that principles of propriety and righteousness are products of sages' thinking, not automatic products of every human being's nature.

Verification / Alternative check:
Reading QRSP as a complete paragraph, you first see the concept of consciously evolved behaviour, then a concrete analogy to clarify that concept, then a specific application to sages and moral systems, and finally a summarising conclusion. Any ordering that places P before S, or R before Q, disrupts either the logic of analogy or the flow from premise to conclusion. For example, starting with P (“Therefore…”) without establishing what the “therefore” refers to would be illogical.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- PQRS and PSQR: These place the conclusion (“Therefore…”) before the reasoning, making the paragraph feel backwards.
- PRQS and RQPS: These either mix analogy and general statement in an awkward way or separate S and P, which need to appear near the end as reasoning and conclusion.

Common Pitfalls:
Many candidates overlook logical connectors such as “Therefore” and treat all sentences as equally likely starters. In argumentative para-jumbles, always identify words like “Thus”, “Therefore”, “Hence” or “As a result”; those sentences almost always belong at or near the end, not at the beginning. Similarly, analogies (like the potter and clay) usually come after the main idea they are meant to clarify.

Final Answer:
The most logical order of the sentences is QRSP.