2023 CSAT — Q1

Locate. This is a best-supported-inference question: the keyed option restates a conclusion the passage’s lines entail; find the line that proposes the action. The passage diagnoses water stress, notes water is a State subject (Union only regulates inter-State rivers), then prescribes: “Key to ensuring balance… is a basin-based approach to allocate water… Allocating fair share… requires assessments based on objective criteria.” The recommended action is a structured, criteria-based allocation framework.

Test (find-the-line-then-match). Match each option to that prescription. (a) “a national, pragmatic, legal and policy framework for water allocation” paraphrases exactly the framework-of-objective-criteria the passage calls for. (b)/(c)/(d) propose physical/engineering or demand-cutting actions — link rivers, build channels, reduce demand — none of which the passage mentions; it prescribes a governance approach, not infrastructure.

Eliminate by anatomy. (b) is out of scope — river-linking is a real policy idea but absent here; (c) is out of scope — surplus-to-deficit channels are likewise never raised; (d) is out of scope and too strong for what the passage says — “reduce demand of agriculture and industry” runs against a passage that wants fair allocation given that agriculture must “keep pace,” not demand suppression. The transferable rule: when a passage prescribes a framework/process, reject options that swap it for hardware or blunt demand cuts. Key: (a).

“Key to ensuring balance between competing demands of various stakeholders is a basin-based approach to allocate water amongst constituent regions and States. Allocating fair share of water to them requires assessments based on objective criteria…” — the passage’s prescription is a structured, criteria-based allocation framework, which (a) (“a national, pragmatic, legal and policy framework for water allocation”) restates. (b)/(c) (river-linking, surplus-to-deficit channels) and (d) (cut demand) are engineering/demand actions the passage never proposes → (a).

The passage’s core recommendation is process, not infrastructure: a basin-based approach allocating water “based on objective criteria, such as specificities of the river basin, size of dependent population, existing water use and demand, efficiency of use, projected future use.” That is a call for a structured allocation framework.

(a) “a national, pragmatic, legal and policy framework for water allocation” captures precisely this. (b) river-linking and (c) surplus-to-deficit channels are engineering schemes the passage never proposes. (d) cutting agricultural/industrial demand contradicts the passage’s premise that allocation must accommodate competing legitimate demands (agriculture must “keep pace”).

Answer: (a).

Three distractors are engineering/demand answers; the passage gives a governance answer. The reflex this item rewards: read the passage’s prescribed kind of action. Here every operative line is about how to allocate fairly — basin-based, criteria-driven — which is a policy framework, not a pipe or a ban. Options that quietly change the genre of solution (build, link, cut) are out of scope no matter how sensible they sound. (a).