CSAT Solved Papers/ 2021/Q42
2021 CSAT — Q42
Passage
In the immediate future, we will see the increasing commodification of many new technologies — artificial intelligence and robotics, 3D manufacturing, custom made biological and pharmaceutical products, lethal autonomous weapons and driverless cars. This will pose conundrums. The moral question of how a driverless car will decide between hitting a jaywalker and swerving and damaging the car has often been debated. The answer is both simple — save the human life — and complex. At which angle should the car swerve — just enough to save the jaywalker or more than enough? If the driverless car is in Dublin, who would take the decision? The Irish Government, or the car’s original code writer in California, or a software programmer in Hyderabad to whom maintenance is outsourced? If different national jurisdictions have different fine print on prioritising a human life, how will it affect insurance and investment decisions, including transnational ones?
Which of the following statements best reflect the rational, plausible and practical implications that can be derived from the passage given above?
-
Too much globalization is not in the best interests of any country.
-
Modern technologies are increasingly blurring the economic borders.
-
Innovation and capital have impinged on the domain of the State.
-
Public policy of every country should focus on developing its own supply chains.
-
Geopolitics will have to reconcile to many ambiguities and uncertainties.
Thinking pathway
Locate. This asks for the best-supported inference: anchor each statement to a passage line — even under a “plausible implications” stem, an implication must trace to the text. The passage: commodification of new technologies “will pose conundrums”; the driverless-car jurisdiction puzzle (Dublin / California / Hyderabad); and “if different national jurisdictions have different fine print on prioritising a human life, how will it affect insurance and investment decisions, including transnational ones?”
Test (find the line, then match it).
- St2 — technologies blur economic borders: the transnational insurance/investment line forces it. VALID.
- St3 — innovation/capital impinge on the State’s domain: the “who decides — government or coder?” puzzle forces it. VALID.
- St5 — geopolitics reconcile to ambiguities: “conundrums… ambiguities… transnational” forces it. VALID.
- St4 — “develop its own supply chains”: the passage never mentions supply chains. not in the passage → INVALID.
- St1 — “too much globalization not in any country’s interest”: the passage raises cross-jurisdiction questions, never a verdict against globalization. too strong for what the passage says → INVALID.
Eliminate by anatomy. (a)/(b)/(d) seat St4 and/or St1 — St4 brings in something the passage doesn’t (a term with no passage referent) and St1 over-states the case (a value-verdict the passage withholds). Blind key: (c); contested against the official (d) because the loose stem invites a generous read.
Evidence in the text
Statement 2 — “If different national jurisdictions have different fine print… how will it affect insurance and investment decisions, including transnational ones?” → technologies blur economic borders → VALID. Statement 3 — “who would take the decision? The Irish Government, or the car’s original code writer in California, or a… programmer in Hyderabad?” → innovation/capital impinge on the State’s decision domain → VALID. Statement 5 — “This will pose conundrums… ambiguities” → geopolitics must reconcile to uncertainties → VALID. Statement 4 fires the ENTITY boundary — “supply chains” appears NOWHERE in the passage → INVALID; Statement 1 over-reads a verdict (“too much globalization not in any country’s interest”) the passage does not deliver → INVALID. Blind (c). Contest: UPSC’s official key is (d) all five, reading the loose “plausible implications” stem generously; St4 (supply chains) is out-of-scope even for “plausible,” so we dual-show and exclude from scoring.
Worked rationale
The passage poses the transnational moral/jurisdictional conundrums of commodified technologies (driverless cars), and asks how diverging national rules affect insurance and investment.
- St2, St3, St5 each trace to an explicit line (transnational insurance; who-decides; conundrums/ ambiguities). Valid.
- St4 invokes “supply chains,” a concept absent from the passage. Invalid.
- St1 delivers a verdict on globalization the passage only raises as a question. Invalid.
Blind answer: (c) 2, 3 and 5 only. Official: (d) all five. The divergence is a genuinely contested key and is excluded from scoring; St4’s absence of any passage referent is what makes (d) hard to defend even under “plausible.”
Why the other options miss
- A not in the passage, and too strong for what the passage says: keeps valid St5 but seats St1’s globalization verdict and St4’s absent supply chains, dropping the valid St2 and St3.
- B keeps valid St2/St3 but adds St1 and St4, and drops the valid St5.
Specialist insight
This item turns on the stem word “plausible.” A plausible-implications stem loosens the bar from forced to reasonable, which is why UPSC’s key sweeps in all five. But “plausible” is not “anything goes”: St4 names “supply chains,” a concept with no anchor anywhere in the passage, and St1 issues a value-verdict on globalization the passage deliberately leaves as an open question. Our discipline keeps the three statements that trace to explicit lines (St2/St3/St5) and excludes the two that don’t. Because the loose stem makes the official (d) genuinely arguable, we dual-show both keys and exclude from scoring rather than bend our text-anchored read — the honest treatment of a fuzzy-stem PYQ.
St4 ("supply chains") has no passage referent and St1 over-states a globalization verdict; the line-anchored set is 2, 3, 5 → (c), contested against UPSC's all-five (d).