Maintaining an ecosystem just to conserve biodiversity will affect its commercial potential as well as the livelihoods dependent on the ecosystem. There is also a conflict between using an ecosystem only for livelihoods, for commercial exploitation, or strictly for conservation. Deforestation caused due to commercial exploitation will lead to indirect harm like floods, siltation problems and microclimatic instability, apart from adversely affecting livelihoods dependent on forests. These conflicts are particularly acute in developing countries where the dependence of people on the ecosystem is significant, and commercial exploitation has the potential to boost national income.
With reference to above passage, the following assumptions have been made:
I. No country needs to depend on ecosystems to boost national income.
II. Resource-rich countries need to share their resources with those of scant resources so as to prevent the degradation of ecosystems.
Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?
A.I only
B.II only
C.Both I and II
D.Neither I nor II✓ Correct
Explanation
Assumption I directly contradicts the passage, which states commercial exploitation of ecosystems has the potential to boost national income—implying countries do depend on ecosystems for national income. Assumption II about resource-sharing between countries is not discussed or implied anywhere in the passage. Hence neither assumption is valid.
💡 Practice unlimited UPSC CSE PYQs + AI-tracked progress on each topic. Sign up free →
More Reading Comprehension / Assumptions questions