2021 CSAT — Q23

Locate. This is a valid-assumption question — find the unstated premise the argument needs, and test each statement against the passage’s actual claims (negate it: if the argument collapses, the assumption was needed). The passage: food-price blame falls on “high fuel prices, bad weather… diversion of land to non-food production,” with “increased emphasis… on a surge in demand for food from the most populous emerging economies,” so that “mass consumption in these countries could be well poised to create a food crisis.”

Test (negation + boundary).

• St1 — oil-producing countries are one reason for high food prices. The passage explicitly lists “high fuel prices” as a cause; fuel originates from oil, so oil producers are a one-step source of that listed cause. Negate it and you remove a contributor the passage’s own list points to. VALID (fair inference).
• St2 — a near-future food crisis “will be IN the emerging economies.” The passage says their consumption could create a crisis — it names them as the cause/driver, not the site. A demand-driven crisis can be global. St2 swaps causation for location. INVALID — a claim the passage never makes, mistaking the cause for the location.

Eliminate by anatomy. (b)/(c) seat St2 — mistaking cause for location: “their consumption creates the crisis” misread as “the crisis happens there.” (d) wrongly drops the valid St1. The transferable rule: when a passage says X causes a problem, do not assume the problem is located in X; that is a fresh, unstated claim. Key: (a).

Statement 1 — “Policy makers and media have placed the blame… including high fuel prices”: fuel comes from oil, so naming oil-producing countries as one reason for high food prices is a one-step inference inside the listed cause “high fuel prices” → VALID. Statement 2 fires the location-vs-causation line: the passage says “mass consumption in these countries could be well poised to create a food crisis” — emerging economies are the driver of a (possibly global) crisis, not necessarily its location. St2 relocates the crisis (“will be IN the emerging economies”), a claim the passage does not make → INVALID → (a).

The passage attributes high food prices to several factors including high fuel prices, and stresses surging demand from populous emerging economies as poised to create a food crisis.

• St1 — “high fuel prices” is a listed cause, and oil-producing countries are the source of fuel, so they are “one of the reasons.” Valid.
• St2 — the passage names emerging economies as the driver of a crisis, not its location; “the crisis will be in the emerging economies” adds a geographic claim the passage never makes. Invalid.

Answer: (a) 1 only.

The decisive distinction is cause versus site. The passage says mass consumption in emerging economies could create a food crisis — a statement about who drives it, not where it lands. St2 silently converts driver into location (“the crisis will be in the emerging economies”); a demand-driven shortage can register anywhere food markets are global. Worth noting (a close call): St1 rides a one-step bridge (“high fuel prices” → oil-producing countries) rather than a quoted line, and St2’s invalidity turns on the fine cause-vs-location read — so (a)-over-(b) is a near call. If (b) tempted you, that is the trap working; the discipline is that the passage names emerging economies as the driver of a crisis, never its site.