2023 CSAT — Q31

Locate. This is a valid-assumption question: don’t hunt for a matching sentence — an assumption is unstated. Find the passage’s actual argument first: municipal-waste segregation at source is rare, recycling sits with the informal sector, most of the budget goes to collection/transport, and biomethanation suits the biodegradable half. That argument is purely descriptive — it diagnoses a system; it makes no claim about who should run it.

Test (negation test + the three-boundary check). Run the actor/entity check first, since both statements smuggle in an actor. Statement 1 says segregation “should be with government agencies” — but the only actors the passage names are the informal sector and the municipality’s budget; “government agencies” as the proper owner is an added entity, and negating it (“need not be with government agencies”) leaves the passage’s diagnosis completely intact. Invalid. Statement 2 says recycling is “best handled by private sector enterprises” — “private sector enterprises” appear nowhere; added entity, and its negation again leaves the argument untouched. Invalid.

Eliminate by anatomy. (a)/(c) admit Statement 1 — introduces a person, thing, or remedy the passage never mentions: a plausible policy preference the passage never commits to. (b)/(c) admit Statement 2 — also brings in something the passage doesn’t: a different plausible owner, equally absent. The transferable rule on valid-assumption questions: a descriptive passage assumes nothing about who should act; any statement that installs a remedy-owner the text never names has crossed the entity boundary. Key: (d).

Statement 1 (“should be with government agencies”) crosses the ENTITY boundary: the passage names the “informal sector” (“Recycling is mostly with the informal sector”) and the “municipal budget,” but never asserts that segregation/collection SHOULD rest with government agencies — a normative actor it does not introduce. Statement 2 (“best handled by private sector enterprises”) crosses the ENTITY boundary too: “private sector enterprises” appear nowhere in the passage. The passage’s only claims are descriptive (segregation is rare; budget skews to transport; biomethanation suits the >50% biodegradable fraction). Neither assumption is needed for those claims → (d).

The passage describes a waste-management reality: source segregation is rare, recycling is informal, the municipal budget is consumed by collection and transport, and biomethanation fits the >50% biodegradable component. Nothing in it argues for an owner of these functions.

Statement 1 — collection/processing/segregation should be with government agencies. The passage neither says nor needs this; it names the informal sector and the municipal budget, not “government agencies” as the rightful actor. Negate it and the passage’s claims still stand. Invalid (adds entity).

Statement 2 — recovery and recycling best handled by private sector enterprises. “Private sector enterprises” never appear; the passage makes no claim about who should handle recovery. Negate it and nothing in the argument breaks. Invalid (adds entity).

Neither assumption is required. Answer: (d) Neither 1 nor 2.

A descriptive passage — one that diagnoses what is — assumes nothing about who should fix it. Both distractor statements answer a “who should own this?” question the passage never raises, each picking a different real-world actor (government vs private). The entity boundary fires on both: point to the passage word for “government agencies” or “private sector enterprises” and there is none. The disciplined reader refuses to import an ownership preference and reaches (d).