National Priorities — Emphasis on Productive Sectors Statement: • In India, more emphasis should be placed on agriculture, engineering, and technology instead of basic and pure sciences. Which conclusion(s) follow?
Correct Answer: Only conclusion II follows
Introduction / Context:The statement is a policy recommendation to shift emphasis toward agriculture, engineering, and technology (generally seen as productivity-linked fields). We must decide which conclusions are justified.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- A prescriptive “should” about sectoral emphasis.
- No explicit evaluation of the current level of achievement in basic/pure sciences.
- Implied motivation: enhance productivity and practical outcomes.
Concept / Approach:Conclusion I (“India has achieved sufficient progress in basic and pure sciences.”) is not stated or implied; the recommendation could stem from need, opportunity cost, or strategic priorities, not necessarily “sufficient progress.” Conclusion II (“In the past, the productivity factor in our economy was neglected.”) is consistent with the call to re-emphasize applied, productivity-oriented areas and can be reasonably inferred as the rationale for the shift.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Recognize prescriptive shift ⇒ correct perceived imbalance.Translate to likely rationale: insufficient past focus on productivity.Reject unstated claim of adequacy in basic science progress.Verification / Alternative check:A nation may under-emphasize productive application without having “sufficient” basic science achievement; the two are independent.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- I alone / Both / Either: I is unsupported.
- Neither: II is a reasonable implied rationale for the policy shift.
Common Pitfalls:Assuming a recommendation implies excellence elsewhere; mistaking policy trade-offs as proof of achievement.
Final Answer:Only conclusion II follows