2023 CSAT — Q64

Locate. This is a valid-assumption question: find the argument’s load-bearing claims. The passage couples two things explicitly: (i) India should grow the digital economy while keeping citizens’ data secure — privacy and economic growth in the same breath; and (ii) “No one will innovate in a surveillance-oriented environment or… where personal information is compromised” — innovation is conditioned on privacy.

Test (negation test + three-boundary check). Statement 1 — “privacy is not just a right but has value to the economy.” The passage frames data protection as a precondition for digital-economy growth, so privacy carries economic value — same entities, same mechanism, no inflated qualifier. Negate it (“privacy has no economic value”) and the passage’s “grow the economy while protecting data” logic collapses. VALID. Statement 2 — “fundamental link between privacy and innovation.” This restates “no one will innovate where personal information is compromised” almost verbatim as a dependence. Negate it (“privacy and innovation are unrelated”) and the passage’s central conditional is contradicted. VALID.

Eliminate by anatomy. (a) drops Statement 2’s direct restatement; (b) drops Statement 1’s economic link; (d) drops both — all sound reasonable but are unsupported refusals, an under-reading that rejects statements the text plainly supports. The transferable rule: when a passage explicitly links A and B (“no one will innovate where privacy is compromised”), a statement asserting “a link between A and B” is a direct restatement, not an over-reach — accept it. Key: (c).

Statement 1 — “India should ensure the growth of the digital economy while keeping personal data of citizens secure and protected” ties privacy/data protection directly to economic growth, so privacy is treated as more than a right — it has economic value: VALID (same entities, same mechanism). Statement 2 — “No one will innovate in a surveillance-oriented environment or in a place where an individual’s personal information is compromised” states a direct dependence of innovation on privacy: VALID (direct restatement, no qualifier inflation). Both inside all three boundaries → (c).

The passage argues data protection laws should enable “user-centric and privacy protecting” innovation, and that the digital economy should grow while citizens’ data stays secure.

Statement 1 — privacy is not just a right but has value to the economy. The passage yokes privacy to digital-economy growth (“ensure the growth of the digital economy while keeping personal data… secure”). Privacy is thus economically valuable, not merely a right. Valid.

Statement 2 — fundamental link between privacy and innovation. “No one will innovate… where an individual’s personal information is compromised” states exactly this dependence. Valid.

Both assumptions hold. Answer: (c) Both 1 and 2.

This is the validity item that rewards not being over-strict. Both statements are plain restatements of the passage’s two explicit couplings — privacy↔economy and privacy↔innovation. A reader trained to hunt for over-reach can talk themselves out of a true statement here; the boundary test is the corrective: each statement names only the passage’s entities (privacy, economy, innovation), uses only its stated mechanism (privacy as precondition), and inflates no qualifier. Nothing crosses a boundary, so both are valid. Answer (c).