CSAT Solved Papers/ 2023/Q51
2023 CSAT — Q51
Passage
Sourcing food from non-agricultural lands (uncultivated systems such as forests, wetlands, pastures, etc) in addition to agricultural lands enables a systemic approach to food consumption. It allows rural and tribal communities to sustain themselves for the whole year and steer clear of natural disasters and season-induced shortfalls of agricultural food. Since the productivity of trees is often more resilient to adverse weather conditions than annual crops, forest foods often provide a safety net during periods of food shortages caused by crop failure; forest foods also make important contributions during seasonal crop production gaps.
Which one of the following statements best reflects the most logical and rational message conveyed by the author of the passage?
Thinking pathway
Locate. This asks for the author’s view: the message hinges on the author’s exact qualifier. The passage’s opening move is decisive: “Sourcing food from non-agricultural lands… in addition to agricultural lands enables a systemic approach.” Forest/uncultivated foods are framed as a supplement — a safety net during crop failures and seasonal gaps — not a substitute. The committed message is develop these sources alongside conventional agriculture.
Test (commitment test + qualifier-match). (d) “agroecosystems should be developed in addition to or along with conventional agriculture” matches the passage’s “in addition to” qualifier exactly. Test the others against that qualifier: (a) “food-yielding trees should replace other trees” flips “in addition to” into replacement; (b) “food security cannot be ensured… with conventional agriculture” is an absolute the passage never states (it complements, not condemns, conventional farming); (c) “wastelands and degraded areas should be converted… to help the poor” narrows to a specific scheme the passage doesn’t specify.
Eliminate by anatomy. (a) gets the direction backwards and flips the passage’s level of certainty — turns “in addition to” into “replace”; (b) is too strong for what the passage says — “cannot be ensured” is categorical and unsupported; (c) is a claim the passage never makes — the wasteland-conversion scheme is not in the passage. The transferable rule on author-view questions: when the author states a relation with a precise qualifier (“in addition to”), the keyed message preserves it; the plant swaps it for “replace” or “instead of.” Key: (d).
Evidence in the text
“Sourcing food from non-agricultural lands (uncultivated systems such as forests, wetlands, pastures, etc) IN ADDITION TO agricultural lands enables a systemic approach to food consumption.” The author’s message is that non-agricultural/forest food sources should supplement — be developed alongside, not replace — conventional agriculture: exactly (d). (a) says “replace” (reverses the “in addition to” qualifier); (b) over-strengthens (“cannot be ensured”); (c) narrows to a specific wasteland/poor scheme the passage never specifies → (d).
Worked rationale
The passage argues forest and uncultivated-land foods provide a year-round safety net “in addition to agricultural lands,” resilient when crops fail. The message: develop these sources alongside conventional agriculture.
(d) preserves the “in addition to / along with” framing exactly. (a) says “replace,” reversing the supplement relationship. (b) over-claims that conventional agriculture cannot ensure food security — the passage complements it, not condemns it. (c) specifies a wasteland-to-agroforestry-for-the-poor scheme the passage never describes.
Answer: (d).
Why the other options miss
- A cause and effect reversed: “food yielding trees should replace other trees” inverts the passage’s “in addition to” into substitution; the passage never proposes replacing anything.
- B too strong for what the passage says: “food security cannot be ensured… with conventional agriculture” is an absolute the passage doesn’t make; it supplements conventional farming, not declares it inadequate.
- C a claim the passage never makes: “wastelands and degraded areas should be converted into agroforestry to help the poor” introduces a specific land-conversion-for-poverty scheme absent from the passage.
Specialist insight
The whole item turns on two words: “in addition to.” The author’s message is supplementation, and the correct option (d) keeps it (“in addition to or along with”). The trap (a) swaps it for “replace” — the single most common qualifier flip on author-view items — while (b) over-states and (c) over-specifies. Matching the author’s exact relational qualifier, not its forceful-sounding inversion, is the move. (d).
The author says source food "in addition to" agriculture; (a) flips it to "replace" and (b) over-claims conventional farming can't ensure food security — the supplement message is (d).