Comprehension
The United Nations Commission on Environment and Development defines 'sustainable development' as follows: "Sustainable development is the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Sustainable development clearly postulates an anthropocentric bias, least concerned with the rights of other species which live on this earth. Anthropocentrism is always human-interest focused thinking that considers non-humans as having only instrumental value to humans, in other words, humans take precedence and human responsibilities towards non-human are based on benefits to humans. Eco-centrism is nature-centred, where humans are part of nature and non-humans have intrinsic value. In other words, human interest does not take automatic precedence and humans have obligations towards non-humans independently of human interest. Eco-centrism is, therefore, life-centred, nature-centred where nature includes both humans and non-humans. The Constitution of India protects not only human rights but also casts an obligation on human beings to protect and preserve a specie from becoming extinct. Conservation and protection of environment is an inseparable part of the fundamental right to life. According to the doctrine of 'public trust' recognized under the Constitution of India, certain common properties such as rivers, seashores, forests and the air are held by the Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. The resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole, that it would be totally unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The State, as a custodian of the natural resources, has a duty to maintain them not merely for the benefit of the public, but for the best interest of flora and fauna, wildlife and so on.
Question: 1
Ms. G, a student of environmental science, has cultivated a butterfly garden which provides a favourable habitat for butterflies. Ms. G has cultivated the butterfly garden so that she could observe and study the different stages of development of butterflies such as egg, larvae, pupae, and adult. In the given situation, which of the following statements is correct?
Ms. G, a student of environmental science, has cultivated a butterfly garden which provides a favourable habitat for butterflies. Ms. G has cultivated the butterfly garden so that she could observe and study the different stages of development of butterflies such as egg, larvae, pupae, and adult. In the given situation, which of the following statements is correct?
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- Ms. G's approach to cultivation of butterfly garden is anthropocentric because it concerns the furtherance of her academic interest.
- Ms. G's approach to cultivation of butterfly garden is anthropocentric because it concerns the conservation of environment.
- Ms. G's approach to cultivation of butterfly garden is eco-centric because it concerns the provision a favourable habitat to the butterflies.
- Ms. G's approach to cultivation of butterfly garden is eco-centric because it concerns the understanding of the different stages of development of butterflies.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (A): Ms. G's approach to cultivation of butterfly garden is anthropocentric because it concerns the furtherance of her academic interest.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The passage distinguishes anthropocentrism, which centers human interest and treats non-humans as having only instrumental value to humans, from eco-centrism, which treats humans and non-humans as part of one interconnected nature with intrinsic, non-human value recognized independently of human benefit. Ms. G cultivated a butterfly garden specifically so that she, as a student of environmental science, could observe and study the developmental stages of butterflies. The question asks how to classify her approach.
- Option (A): This classifies her approach as anthropocentric because it serves her academic interest. Her stated purpose is to observe and study butterflies for her own learning; the garden exists as a means to her educational end, which is a human interest. Even though butterflies benefit incidentally from the habitat, the driving motivation is Ms. G's own academic advancement, which fits the passage's definition of anthropocentrism precisely.
- Option (B): This also calls her approach anthropocentric, but for a different reason, environmental conservation. Nothing in the facts suggests Ms. G created the garden out of a conservation motive; her stated purpose is academic study of developmental stages, not conservation of butterflies as an end in itself. The classification may be right, but the reasoning given does not match the facts.
- Option (C): This calls her approach eco-centric because it provides a favourable habitat to butterflies. Providing a habitat is the means Ms. G uses, but the passage's eco-centrism requires that non-human interests be valued independently of human benefit; here, the habitat exists to serve Ms. G's own study, not the butterflies' welfare for its own sake. This option misreads the underlying motivation.
- Option (D): This calls her approach eco-centric because it concerns understanding the butterflies' developmental stages. Understanding those stages is, again, Ms. G's own academic objective; using non-human subjects to further human knowledge is still centered on human interest under the passage's framework, not an eco-centric valuing of the butterflies for their own sake.
Since Ms. G's underlying motivation is her own academic interest, and the garden is simply the means to that end, her approach is correctly classified as anthropocentric, and specifically for the reason given in option (A).
Therefore, the correct answer is Ms. G's approach to cultivation of butterfly garden is anthropocentric because it concerns the furtherance of her academic interest.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
Which of the following statements is correct?
Which of the following statements is correct?
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- Anthropocentrism and eco-centrism are different approaches to achieving sustainable development.
- Anthropocentrism focuses on the promotion of non-human interests.
- Eco-centrism is concerned with the promotion of both human and non-human interests.
- Anthropocentrism and eco-centrism are different approaches to protection of environment and sustainable development.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (C): Eco-centrism is concerned with the promotion of both human and non-human interests.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
This question asks which single statement correctly describes the relationship between anthropocentrism, eco-centrism, environmental protection and sustainable development, as set out in the passage. The passage specifically notes that sustainable development itself carries an anthropocentric bias, and separately defines eco-centrism as concerned with both humans and non-humans as part of one interconnected nature.
- Option (A): This frames anthropocentrism and eco-centrism as different approaches to achieving sustainable development. The passage actually says sustainable development is itself anthropocentrically biased, meaning eco-centrism is less an alternate route to the same goal of sustainable development and more a rival paradigm that questions that very bias. Framing both as equally valid paths to sustainable development does not match the passage.
- Option (B): This claims anthropocentrism focuses on promoting non-human interests. That is the reverse of the passage's definition; anthropocentrism is explicitly described as human-interest focused, treating non-humans as having only instrumental value to humans. This option is incorrect.
- Option (C): This states eco-centrism is concerned with promoting both human and non-human interests. The passage describes eco-centrism as nature-centred, where nature includes both humans and non-humans, and notes that under eco-centrism, human interest does not automatically take precedence, but obligations run toward non-humans independent of human interest. This means eco-centrism does not exclude human interest; it simply refuses to let human interest override non-human interest, so both remain part of its concern. This option accurately reflects that framing.
- Option (D): This frames the two as different approaches to protection of environment and sustainable development, repeating the same issue as (A): sustainable development is described as inherently anthropocentric, not as a neutral shared goal the two paradigms just approach differently.
Only the description of eco-centrism as concerned with both human and non-human interests, rather than the framing of both theories as parallel paths to sustainable development, matches the passage.
Therefore, the correct answer is Eco-centrism is concerned with the promotion of both human and non-human interests.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
Which of the following is the basis for the difference between anthropocentrism and eco-centrism?
Which of the following is the basis for the difference between anthropocentrism and eco-centrism?
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- The inherent value placed on humans and non-humans.
- The inherent value placed on living things and non-living things.
- The relationship between human society and environment.
- The relationship between non-humans and environment.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (A): The inherent value placed on humans and non-humans.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The passage explains that anthropocentrism treats non-humans as having only instrumental value to humans, while eco-centrism treats non-humans as having intrinsic value, independent of any benefit to humans. The question asks what the actual basis of this difference is.
- Option (A): This identifies the inherent value placed on humans and non-humans as the basis for the difference. This tracks the passage precisely: the core distinction the passage draws is between treating non-humans as merely instrumentally valuable to humans, under anthropocentrism, versus recognizing intrinsic value in non-humans, under eco-centrism. This option correctly identifies the basis.
- Option (B): This frames the difference as being about living versus non-living things. The passage's distinction is specifically about humans versus non-humans, not a broader living versus non-living divide; natural resources discussed later in the passage, like rivers and air, are non-living yet still fall within the scope of the concern, so this option mischaracterizes the actual basis.
- Option (C): This frames the difference as being about the relationship between human society and environment generally. This is too broad and vague to capture what specifically separates the two paradigms; both paradigms concern human society's relationship with the environment in some sense, but the passage's actual dividing line is the value placed on non-humans, not this general relationship.
- Option (D): This frames the difference as being about the relationship between non-humans and environment. The passage's comparison is centered on how each paradigm values humans relative to non-humans, not on a relationship exclusively between non-humans and their environment; this option shifts the comparison to the wrong pair of terms.
The passage's own language, instrumental value versus intrinsic value assigned to non-humans, points directly to the basis identified in option (A).
Therefore, the correct answer is The inherent value placed on humans and non-humans.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
Which of the following statements is correct regarding fundamental right to life under the Constitution of India?
Which of the following statements is correct regarding fundamental right to life under the Constitution of India?
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- It creates a corresponding duty on human beings to protect and preserve non-humans.
- It creates a corresponding duty on non-humans to protect the right to life of human beings.
- It is inclusive of the right of human beings to utilize non-human resources to the best of their advantage.
- It is inclusive of the right of non-humans to utilize human resources to the best of their advantage.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (A): It creates a corresponding duty on human beings to protect and preserve non-humans.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The passage states that the Constitution of India's protection of the fundamental right to life also casts an obligation on human beings to protect and preserve species from extinction, treating conservation as an inseparable part of that right. The question asks what this fundamental right correctly entails.
- Option (A): This states the right creates a corresponding duty on human beings to protect and preserve non-humans. This directly reflects the passage's statement that the Constitution casts an obligation on human beings to protect and preserve species from extinction as part of the right to life. This option correctly captures the passage.
- Option (B): This claims non-humans owe a duty to protect the right to life of humans. The passage discusses duties running from humans toward non-humans, as part of a constitutional obligation on human beings; it does not describe non-humans as bearers of legal duties toward humans, which would not make sense as a matter of law in any event. This option is incorrect.
- Option (C): This claims the right includes a right of humans to utilize non-human resources to their own advantage. This runs contrary to the passage's framing of the right to life as including a conservation obligation, not an entitlement to exploit non-human resources; the passage's emphasis is on protection and preservation, not utilization for advantage. This option is incorrect.
- Option (D): This claims the right includes a right of non-humans to utilize human resources. Nothing in the passage suggests non-humans hold any legal rights against humans in this manner; this option has no support in the text and inverts the relationship the passage describes.
The passage squarely places an obligation on humans toward non-humans as part of the right to life, which is exactly what option (A) describes.
Therefore, the correct answer is It creates a corresponding duty on human beings to protect and preserve non-humans.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
Which of the following statements is incorrect according to the doctrine of 'public trust' ?
Which of the following statements is incorrect according to the doctrine of 'public trust' ?
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- Private ownership of forests is unwarranted.
- Forests are held by the State in a fiduciary capacity.
- State is obligated to maintain forests for their economic value.
- State is obligated to maintain forests in the interest of humans and non-humans.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (C): State is obligated to maintain forests for their economic value.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The doctrine of public trust, as described in the passage, holds that certain common resources such as rivers, seashores, forests and air are held by the government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public, and that the state must maintain them not merely for the public's benefit but for the best interest of flora, fauna and wildlife as well. The question asks which statement about this doctrine is incorrect.
- Option (A): This states private ownership of forests is unwarranted. The passage explicitly says it would be totally unjustified to make resources like forests a subject of private ownership, given their importance to the people as a whole. This statement is accurate.
- Option (B): This states forests are held by the state in a fiduciary capacity. The passage describes the government as holding such resources in trusteeship, which is precisely a fiduciary role, for the public's free and unimpeded use. This statement is accurate.
- Option (C): This states the state is obligated to maintain forests for their economic value. The passage says the opposite: the state's duty extends beyond mere public benefit to the best interest of flora, fauna and wildlife, without framing this obligation in terms of economic value at all. Reducing the state's duty to economic value contradicts the passage's broader, non-economic conservation rationale. This statement is inaccurate.
- Option (D): This states the state is obligated to maintain forests in the interest of both humans and non-humans. The passage says the state's duty extends to maintaining these resources not just for public benefit but for the best interest of flora, fauna and wildlife, which is exactly this dual obligation. This statement is accurate.
Statements (A), (B) and (D) all track the passage closely, while (C) narrows the state's duty to economic value in a way the passage does not support.
Therefore, the correct answer is State is obligated to maintain forests for their economic value.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top CLAT Questions
- In the realm of contemporary literature, the interplay between character and setting is a nuanced dance that shapes the narrative’s essence. The setting, often described with painstaking detail, becomes more than a backdrop; it becomes a character, influencing the plot and character development.
Consider, for instance, the barren expanse of the desert in Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake. The arid landscape mirrors the sense of isolation felt by the protagonist, Gogol, as he navigates his identity crisis in a foreign land. The relentless sun and vast sands are not mere descriptions; they are the silent witnesses to his inner turmoil.
On the other end of the literary spectrum, there is Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. The lush, vibrant Kerala backwaters are not just the setting; they are a character woven into the fabric of the story. The teeming, humid landscape reflects the complex web of human relationships and secrets that unravel in the narrative. This interplay is not confined to contemporary literature alone. In Shakespeare’s timeless tragedy Macbeth, the eerie and foreboding setting of the Scottish moors casts a dark shadow over the characters’ actions. The moors, shrouded in mist and mystery, serve as an ever-present omen of the impending tragedy. - The crisis of justice that is the subject matter of discussion in the media today is in fact the crisis of “justice for the middle class”. The main difference between India and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries is that whereas the middle class in these countries has reasonable access to justice, in India it does not. A vocal and powerful middle class has emerged in India since 1991. It is demanding reasonable access to justice. Much of the judicial reform effort will help meet this demand…
The question of justice for the poor is, however, an altogether different challenge. No country in the world has been able to secure justice for the poor. Most of the jails of the richest countries are filled with the poorest. The “masses” are more often victims of the criminal justice system than of crime. In India as well, jails are almost exclusively filled with the poor. The civil justice system is hardly accessible to them. They are often victimised by lawyers, touts and court staff. They are docket-excluded, a new type of untouchability. The language and the logic—and the colonial and feudal culture—of the judicial system are alien to them. It rarely takes cognisance of their needs and interests.
Their main concern, therefore, is to escape the attention of the justice system, criminal and civil. A landless Dalit person in the interior of Madhya Pradesh once gave me an insightful definition of a court from the perspective of the masses: “A court is a place where you are forcibly taken by the police to be punished; no one goes to a court.” In contrast, many lawyers and judges colloquially define a court as “a temple of justice where rights are protected”.
These sharply divergent visions mean that justice for one section is often injustice for another. Protecting the livelihood of traditional taxi and auto drivers from predatory pricing by corporate app-based taxi providers by imaginatively using the available tools of law to delay their incursion would be seen by the rich and by sections of the middle class as a failure of the judicial system, and possibly as also resulting in a downgrading of the “ease of doing business” measure. However, the masses would see such a judicial intervention as strong evidence of a good justice system. Although the conflict over competing visions of the nation and conflicting demands from social and economic segments have confined judicial reform of judicial administration mainly to “neutral” areas such as process reform, procedural law, technology, planning and court and case management, judge strength, and the workload of judges, there has been considerable improvement in these areas, and the judicial system has improved its performance.
[Extracted, with edits, from “Justice and the Two Ideas of India”, by G. Mohan Gopal, Frontline] - Everything she wanted was here, at Carignano, in Kasauli. Here, on the ridge of the mountain, in this quiet house. It was the place, and the time of life, that she had wanted and prepared for all her life-as she realized on the first day at Carignano, with a great, cool flowering of relief - and at last she had it. She wanted no one and nothing else. Whatever else came, or happened here, would be an unwelcome intrusion and distraction. This she tried to convey to the plodding postman with a cold and piercing stare from the height of the ridge onto his honest bull back. Unfortunately, he did not look up at her on the hilltop but stared stolidly down at the dust piling onto his shoes as he plodded on. A bullock-man, an oafish ox, she thought bitterly. She stepped backwards into the garden and the wind suddenly billowed up and threw the pine branches about as though to curtain her. She was grey, tall and thin and her silk sari made a sweeping, shivering sound and she fancied she could merge with the pine trees and be mistaken for one. To be a tree, no more and no less, was all she was prepared to undertake.
What pleased and satisfied her so, here at Carignano, was its barrenness. This was the chief virtue of all Kasauli of course-its starkness. It had rocks, it had pines, it had light and air. In every direction there was a sweeping view - to the north, of the mountains, to the south, of the plains. Occasionally an eagle swam through this clear unobstructed mass of light and air, that was all. And Carignano, her home on the ridge, had no more than that. Why should it? The sun shone on its white walls. Its windows were open the ones facing north opened on to the blue waves of the Himalayas flowing out and up to the line of ice and snow sketched upon the sky, while those that faced south looked down the plunging cliff to the plain stretching out, flat and sere to the blurred horizon.
Yes, there were some apricot trees close to the house. There were clumps of iris that had finished blooming. There was the kitchen with a wing of smoke lifting out of its chimney and a stack of wood outside its door. But these were incidental, almost unimportant.
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “Fire on the Mountain” by Anita Desai] - English literature is a vast and diverse field that has left an indelible mark on the world of letters. From the eloquent plays of William Shakespeare to the complex novels of Jane Austen and the profound poetry of William Wordsworth, English literature offers a window into the human experience. One of the luminaries of English literature is William Shakespeare, often hailed as the greatest playwright in the history of English language. His works, including Hamlet, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet, are celebrated for their exploration of human nature, love, ambition, and tragedy. His characters, such as the tormented Hamlet and the star-crossed lovers Romeo and Juliet, continue to captivate readers and audiences worldwide.
The 19th century ushered in a new era of literary giants. Jane Austen’s novels, such as Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility, provide incisive social commentary through the lens of wit and romance. Austen’s heroines, like Elizabeth Bennet and Elinor Dashwood, remain beloved literary figures known for their intelligence and resilience. The Romantic era brought forth poets like William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who celebrated * 8 UG the beauty of nature and the emotional intensity of the individual. Wordsworth’s ‘‘I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud’’ and Coleridge’s ‘‘The Rime of the Ancient Mariner’’ are testament to the power of the written words to evoke profound emotions and imagery. Moving towards 20th century, English literature continued to evolve. Virginia Woolf’s ground-breaking novel Mrs. Dalloway explored the inner thoughts and lives of its characters with a modernist narrative style. Dystopian visions, as seen in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four provided stark warnings about the dangers of totalitarianism and the erosion of individual freedom.
Today, English literature is a global phenomenon, transcending borders and languages. Indian authors like Arundhati Roy, with her novel The God of Small Things, have won prestigious international literary awards. The book not only explores intricate family dynamics but also delves into the broader socio-political landscape of India. In summary, English literature is a testament to the enduring power of storytelling and the written word. It encompasses an array of authors, themes, and styles that continue to captivate and inspire readers across the world. - On the evening of the 10th, General Dyer arrived at Amritsar, and the Deputy-Commissioner handed over the civil power to him. He issued a proclamation by word of mouth that no meetings should be held. Two days later, after there had been no sort of riot, nor murder, General Dyer heard that a meeting was to be held at the Jallianwala Bagh. He proceeded there with about fifty troops, half British, half Indian, and a certain number of Ghurkas, armed with their kukris. The Jallianwala Bagh is an open space, half a mile square, which has one entry wide enough for three persons. The troops got in and lined up on a mound of debris. The walls, seven feet high, and the surrounding houses enclosed the people. There were, too, three alleys through which the people might have been able to pass. Within thirty seconds of the troops getting in, General Dyer gave orders to fire, and the crowd of people, estimated at anything from 5,000 to 20,000, who were sitting on the ground peacefully listening to the mob oratory, were fired on. The result of the troops’ fire into the mass of people we do not know. But we do know that Dyer’s own estimate of the casualties resulting from ten minutes continual individual firing, was 400 to 500 killed and 1,500 wounded. The people were not able to escape. They were people who had not offered any violence and who had not been warned. These people were shot down. After ten minutes, the ammunition was exhausted and the troops marched off, and they left 1,500 wounded there. There were men lying there for two days, dying of thirst, eating the ground, bleeding to death and nobody to look after them. Those who lived nearby came and carried away some of the wounded from the heap of dead and dying, but the unfortunate country people died there miserably of their wounds. This is what is done in 1919 in British India…
Centuries hence you will find Indian children brought up to this spot, just as they visit now the Cawnpore Well, and you can imagine the feelings of these Indians for generations over this terrible business.
[Col. Wedgwood, MP, speaking in the British Parliament, 22 December 1919]
View More Questions