Introduction / Context:
The statement laments that India’s growth has been accompanied by pollution from industry and vehicles. We must locate the minimal beliefs that support this framing without adding extraneous claims.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Main claim: Economic growth has entailed a heavy pollution cost.
- I suggests pollution tends to accompany industrial society (a general linkage).
- II says growth is based only on industry (excessively restrictive).
- III indicates growth is desirable but side effects should be contained (value framing behind calling the price “terrible”).
Concept / Approach:
- Calling the pollution cost “terrible” presumes growth is good yet the externalities are problematic; hence a desire for growth with manageable side effects (III).
- Attributing pollution to industrial and vehicular sources presupposes that such activities inherently risk pollution (I).
- Exclusivity (“only industrial growth”) is not required; services and agriculture may also contribute to growth. Thus II is not necessary.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Keep I: Provides causal plausibility (industry/vehicles → pollution).Keep III: Explains the evaluative stance (growth wanted, side effects undesirable).Drop II: Unnecessary restriction; the statement does not claim “only” industrial growth.
Verification / Alternative check:
I and III together make the sentence coherent. Removing either undermines the causal or evaluative components. II is irrelevant to the core logic.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I or only III leaves the statement under-justified; II is a distortion; “None” ignores the evident causal and value premises.
Common Pitfalls:
Assuming that because industry is mentioned, growth must be exclusively industrial.
Final Answer:
Only I and III are implicit
Discussion & Comments