Question

According to the author, the various constituents of the environment are

• A. Supplementary
• B. independent
• C. mutually exclusive
• D. interdependent
• A. understanding the cause
• B. analysis of the existent resources
• C. planning
• D. sound implementation of ideas
• A. I only
• B. I and II
• C. II and III
• D. All I, II and III
• A. incoming sunlight
• B. trapping gases
• C. gaseous radiation
• D. lower air-layers
• A. half of what is needed
• B. adequate
• C. adequate for mangroves
• D. None of these
• A. genetically modified rice for eating
• B. food grains produced by robots
• C. drinks containing artificial flavours and preservations
• D. All of the above
• A. are easy to use
• B. are easily produced
• C. kill only pesticides
• D. are biodegradable
• A. NGOs should monitor the environmental angle of industrial activity.
• B. Governmental influence on industrial awareness about environmental matters needs to be stepped up.
• C. Industries should bear the burden of cleaning their effluents.
• D. Industries should switch over to natural products while manufacturing products.
• A. I and II
• B. Only II
• C. Only III
• D. II and III
• A. analysis
• B. expression of despair
• C. intellectual pursuit
• D. exhortation

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The opening lines of the passage tell us how the parts of the environment relate to each other. The author writes that flora and fauna, birds, animals and humans all play a vital role, and adds a sharp warning: touch one part adversely and all of them suffer. That single line is the key to this question, so let's check each option against it.

1. Supplementary: this word suggests one part simply adds something extra to another, like a bonus. The passage describes a much tighter bond than that, where harm to one part directly harms the rest, so this is too weak a description.
2. independent: if the parts were independent, damaging one would not affect the others at all. The author says the exact opposite, that damaging one part makes all of them suffer, so this option is ruled out.
3. mutually exclusive: this would mean the parts do not affect each other and can be treated as separate, unconnected systems. Again, this goes against the passage, which shows a direct chain reaction between them.
4. interdependent: this means each part depends on and affects the others. That is exactly what the line "touch one adversely and all suffer" is describing, a web where every part is linked to the rest.

The correct reading is that the constituents of the environment are interdependent, since damage to one always spreads to the others.

Let's summarize:

• The passage shows a cause-and-effect chain running through flora, fauna and humans.
• "Touch one adversely and all suffer" is the direct textual support for interdependence.

So the correct option is (4), interdependent.

Answer 2

The passage opens by saying that no effort is made to understand the reasons behind recurring environmental disasters, and that these disasters will keep repeating with more intensity unless we make that effort. Later it says, "Once we understand the causes, it is easy to take to remedial measures. This brings us to planning." This line places understanding before planning in the sequence, so let's test each option.

1. understanding the cause: the author repeatedly stresses that disasters continue because their reasons are never studied, and only after understanding the causes does planning become easy. This places it first in the sequence toward a remedy.
2. analysis of the existent resources: the passage never mentions counting or analysing existing resources as a step in the remedy, so this has no support in the text.
3. planning: planning is discussed, but the author explicitly says understanding the causes is what "brings us to planning", so planning is presented as a later step, not the first one.
4. sound implementation of ideas: implementation would come after a plan already exists, so it is even later in the sequence than planning itself.

Since the passage's own logic is understand first, then plan, then act, the first step has to be understanding the cause.

Let's summarize:

• The author links disasters directly to a lack of effort to understand their causes.
• "Once we understand the causes, it is easy to take to remedial measures" places understanding before planning.

So the correct option is (1), understanding the cause.

Answer 3

This question asks us to separate what the passage actually supports from what looks tempting but goes beyond the text. Let's check each of the three statements one at a time.

1. Statement I, Cancer is Incurable: the passage says ozone depletion "causes killer cancer for which as yet there is no cure." This talks about one specific type of cancer, and even there it says "as yet", meaning no cure exists right now, not that a cure is impossible forever. Turning this into the blanket claim "cancer is incurable" stretches the text further than it goes, so this statement is not properly inferable.
2. Statement II, the present nature of men's interaction is unsustainable: the passage is about how humans treat the environment, global warming, effluents, pesticides and forests, not about the nature of interaction between people themselves. Nothing in the passage discusses social or interpersonal interaction among men, so this statement brings in an idea the passage never addresses and cannot be inferred from it.
3. Statement III, mother's milk is not advisable: the passage directly states that recent studies found DDT contents in mother's milk, coming from food grown with agrochemicals and pesticides. Once a contaminant like DDT is confirmed in the milk, it is a fair and direct inference that consuming it is not advisable, so this statement is well supported by the text.

Since I and II both go beyond what the passage actually says, while III is a reasonable inference, the two statements that are NOT inferable are I and II.

Let's summarize:

• I overgeneralises a specific, current lack of cure into a permanent, universal claim.
• II talks about something, human social interaction, that the passage never covers.
• III follows directly from the stated fact about DDT in mother's milk.

So the correct option is (2), I and II.

Answer 4

The passage explains the greenhouse effect in one careful sentence: incoming sunlight carries a fixed amount of energy, and the lower air layers hold gases such as water vapour and carbon dioxide. When these gases warm up, some of that heat is radiated back down to the earth's surface, and this back radiation is what the author calls the green (greenhouse) effect. Let's check each option against this mechanism.

1. incoming sunlight: sunlight is the constant energy input, it arrives every day regardless of the greenhouse effect. It is the starting point of the process, not the culprit that creates the warming.
2. trapping gases: this names the gases themselves as static objects. It is close, but the passage's actual cause of warming is not that the gases merely sit there, it is what they do once warmed, namely radiate heat back.
3. gaseous radiation: this is the exact action the passage describes, the gases warm up and radiate part of that heat back to the earth's surface. It is this re-radiation that pushes the surface temperature up, which is the greenhouse effect itself.
4. lower air-layers: this only names where the gases sit, the location, not the process that actually causes warming.

Since the passage ties the warming directly to gases radiating heat back to earth, the main culprit is gaseous radiation.

Let's summarize:

• Sunlight is the input, air layers are the location, and trapping gases are the agents.
• The actual mechanism that raises temperature is the gases radiating heat back down, which is gaseous radiation.

So the correct option is (3), gaseous radiation.

Answer 5

Two figures in the passage are needed together for this question: "A country needs more than 30 percent forest cover" and "India has less than 20 percent of forest cover." The question asks us to describe India's shortfall roughly, using the given options.

1. half of what is needed: India's cover, under 20 percent, is clearly well short of the 30-plus percent that is needed. Among the choices given, this is the only one that expresses a real, sizeable shortfall, and the passage frames the situation in exactly this rough, cautionary way rather than with a precise ratio.
2. adequate: this directly contradicts the passage, which flags India's forest cover as a shortfall, not as sufficient.
3. adequate for mangroves: mangroves are not singled out anywhere in the passage in connection with the forest cover figures, so this option has no textual support.
4. None of these: this would only be correct if none of the other three fit at all, but option (1) does capture the gist of the passage, a serious shortfall against the required cover, so this option is not needed.

The passage is making a rough, qualitative point, that India's forest cover falls well short of what is required, and of the choices given, "half of what is needed" is the one that reflects that shortfall.

Let's summarize:

• Required cover: more than 30 percent. India's actual cover: less than 20 percent.
• Only option (1) describes this as a real shortfall, matching the passage's tone.

So the correct option is (1), half of what is needed.

Answer 6

Throughout the passage, the author consistently favours natural, traditional solutions over artificial or heavily engineered ones: organic fertilizers instead of chemical pesticides, neem and tulsi instead of indiscriminate chemical sprays, and restoring forest cover instead of relying on technology alone to fix the climate. With that pattern in mind, let's look at each option.

1. genetically modified rice for eating: this involves altering the natural genetic makeup of a food crop, which runs against the author's clear preference for natural, unaltered produce and traditional farming inputs.
2. food grains produced by robots: this replaces natural, organic farming with mechanised, artificial production, again opposite to the author's call to go back to nature and to traditional practices like organic fertilizers.
3. drinks containing artificial flavours and preservations: artificial flavours and preservatives are synthetic additions to food, similar in spirit to the chemical pesticides the author wants phased out, so this too sits against the author's stated values.
4. All of the above: since genetically modified rice, robot-produced grains, and artificially flavoured drinks each represent a synthetic or engineered alternative to something natural, all three would go against the same underlying philosophy the author repeats throughout the passage, "let us go back to Nature."

Because every one of the first three options represents an artificial or engineered departure from nature, none of them would get the author's support, which makes "All of the above" the correct choice.

Let's summarize:

• The author's refrain is to return to natural, traditional practices and phase out artificial or chemical ones.
• GM rice, robot-made grains, and artificial-flavour drinks all sit on the artificial side of that divide.

So the correct option is (4), All of the above.

Answer 7

The passage draws a direct contrast between ordinary chemical pesticides and neem. It says, "The indiscriminate use of pesticides kills both predatory and beneficial insects. Let us bring back use of Neem for pesticides, which kills only predatory insects." This contrast is the whole basis of neem's advantage, so let's check each option against it.

1. are easy to use: ease of use is never discussed anywhere in the passage in connection with neem, so this has no support.
2. are easily produced: how easily neem products are made is also not mentioned in the passage.
3. kill only pesticides: this matches the passage's key contrast, ordinary chemical pesticides harm both harmful and beneficial insects, while neem, unlike them, targets only the harmful, predatory ones and spares the beneficial insects. This selectivity is exactly what the passage presents as neem's advantage.
4. are biodegradable: biodegradability is a real environmental plus point in general, but the passage does not use this reasoning anywhere to explain why neem is superior; the actual reason it gives is the selective killing described above.

Since the passage's own comparison is built entirely around selectivity, sparing beneficial insects while still controlling pests, that is the basis for neem's superiority.

Let's summarize:

• Chemical pesticides: kill both predatory and beneficial insects.
• Neem: targets only the harmful insects, sparing the beneficial ones.

So the correct option is (3).

Answer 8

The passage's clearest statement on industries is this: "Within a time-bound framework, these devices must be installed, failing which the erring industries must be closed down. No new industries should be permitted without efficient effluent management and treatment." This puts the responsibility for cleaning up pollution squarely on the industries themselves, so let's check the options.

1. NGOs should monitor industrial activity: NGOs are mentioned only as one member of a proposed steering committee, alongside government ministers, scientists and industries. The passage never assigns them a standalone monitoring role, so this overstates their part.
2. Governmental influence on industrial awareness needs to be stepped up: the passage does not discuss government awareness campaigns aimed at industries; it talks about a joint steering committee and firm deadlines instead.
3. Industries should bear the burden of cleaning their effluents: this matches the passage directly. Industries must install effluent treatment devices within a fixed timeframe, face closure if they fail to do so, and new industries cannot even open without proper effluent management. The burden clearly falls on the industries themselves.
4. Industries should switch over to natural products in manufacturing: the passage's point about switching to natural inputs, organic fertilizers, neem, tulsi, is made about farming and pest control, not about industrial manufacturing in general, so this option misapplies the idea.

The passage is explicit that industries must fund and install their own effluent treatment or be shut down, which places the responsibility on industries.

Let's summarize:

• Time-bound installation of effluent devices, with closure as the penalty for failure.
• No new industry without proper effluent management in place.

So the correct option is (3).

Answer 9

To answer this, we need to check whether each of the three topics is actually named and discussed in the passage, not just loosely related to something in it.

1. global warming: the passage names this topic directly, "People must be made aware of the phenomenon of global warming," and then explains the CO2 and greenhouse mechanism behind it in detail. This is clearly covered.
2. noise pollution: the passage discusses air-related warming, effluents, and pesticide contamination, but at no point does it mention noise or sound pollution in any form. This topic is absent from the passage.
3. water pollution: the passage talks about industrial effluents and their treatment, but it frames this as effluent management for industries, and never explicitly names or discusses "water pollution" as its own topic. Since the question is about what the author explicitly covers, this counts as not covered either.

Since global warming is explicitly named and explained, while noise pollution and water pollution are never named or directly discussed, the topics not covered by the author are II and III.

Let's summarize:

• Global warming: explicitly named and explained through the greenhouse mechanism.
• Noise pollution and water pollution: neither is explicitly named anywhere in the passage.

So the correct option is (4), II and III.

Answer 10

This question asks us to step back and describe the overall nature of the passage, not just one of its lines. Most of the passage is spent breaking down causes: why disasters recur, how global warming works through CO2, how the greenhouse effect works through gases radiating heat, why ozone depletion causes cancer, why forest cover matters, and why effluents need managing. This is the passage's real structure, so let's test each option.

1. analysis: the bulk of the passage methodically explains mechanisms and reasons, the CO2 cycle, the greenhouse process, the forest cover numbers, the effluent management chain, which is exactly what analysis means, breaking a problem down into its causes and workings.
2. expression of despair: while the author does warn about "irreversible disaster," the passage does not dwell on hopelessness; it moves quickly into explaining causes and proposing concrete fixes like committees and organic alternatives, which is not what despair alone would produce.
3. intellectual pursuit: this suggests exploring ideas for their own sake, out of curiosity. The passage instead stays tightly focused on practical, real-world environmental problems and remedies, not abstract intellectual exploration.
4. exhortation: the passage does close with calls to action, such as "let us go back to Nature," but these closing lines sit on top of a much larger body of analysis; the persuasive urging is the conclusion drawn from the analysis, not the main body of the passage itself.

Since the passage spends most of its length explaining causes and mechanisms in a structured way, with the calls to action only bookending that analysis, the passage is best described as an attempt at analysis.

Let's summarize:

• Most paragraphs explain a mechanism or cause: warming, greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, forest cover, effluents.
• The exhortations are a short closing response built on top of that analysis, not the core of the passage.

So the correct option is (1), analysis.