With reference to the above passage, the following assumptions have been made: I. Supply-side investments in companies can result in low-carbon behaviour in people. II. People are not capable of adapting low-carbon behaviour without the involvement of Government and Companies. Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

1. A. I only
2. B. II only
3. C. Both I and II
4. D. Neither I nor II

Answer: A

Explanation

The passage states that “achieving household emission reductions would require companies and governments to provide more incentives to change through supply-side investments to make low-carbon options cheaper and more widely available.” This directly supports Assumption I, as it links supply-side investments to influencing people’s low-carbon behavior. Therefore, Assumption I is valid. Assumption II claims that people are *not capable* of adapting low-carbon behavior without government and company involvement. The passage mentions that “at best, half the reduction might be achieved through demand-side measures,” implying that some individual action is possible, even if less effective. The passage emphasizes the *need* for incentives for significant change, but doesn’t state an absolute incapability without them. Thus, Assumption II overstates the dependency and is not fully supported. This question tests critical reading and the ability to distinguish between what is explicitly stated or strongly implied versus an overreaching conclusion, a key skill for UPSC CSAT.