Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Only conclusion I follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:From a dependency statement, we can infer supportive policy actions that would strengthen the dependency pillar, but we should avoid extreme exclusivity claims. The statement says India’s economy depends mainly on forests, not solely. We test I) Trees should be preserved to improve India’s economy. II) India wants only maintenance of forests to improve economic conditions.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Conclusion I is a reasonable policy inference: preserving a principal resource aids the dependent economy. Conclusion II is an “only” claim that excludes other economic levers—trade, services, industry, agriculture—which is far stronger than the premise allows.
Step-by-Step Solution:
From “depends mainly,” infer importance and need for preservation—supports I.There is no basis for “only” in II; dependence “mainly” does not equal “exclusively.”Verification / Alternative check:
Consider India’s diversified economy (agriculture, services, industry); even if forests are a major pillar, others exist. Hence II fails.Why Other Options Are Wrong:
B: Accepts II, which overstates the claim.C and E: Include II incorrectly.D: Rejects I despite its direct policy logic.Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “mainly” with “only,” a classic trap in logical interpretation questions.Final Answer:Only conclusion I follows
Discussion & Comments