2024 CSAT — Q1

Locate. This asks for the best-supported inference: the keyed inference is one a quotable line entails — never a real-world fact you supply. So for each numbered statement, hunt the line that would force it. The passage gives three hard facts: loss happens “throughout the supply chain, from initial agricultural production to final household consumption”; “wastage also results in land degradation by about 45%”; and “energy spent over wasted food results in about 3.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide production every year.”

Test (find the line, then match it, per statement). Statement 2 — land productivity adversely affected: the “land degradation by about 45%” line entails it (degradation reduces productivity). Valid. Statement 3 — reducing loss lowers carbon footprint: the “energy spent over wasted food → 3.5 billion tonnes of CO₂” line entails it (less waste → less CO₂). Valid. Statement 1 — distribution “solely responsible”: the passage spreads loss across the whole chain, so “solely” via distribution is both over-strong and contradicted. Invalid. Statement 4 — post-harvest technologies “are not available”: no line addresses their availability. Out of scope. Valid set = {2, 3}.

Eliminate by anatomy. Every option containing Statement 1 — (a), (c), (d) — falls to the over-strong trap (“solely” is too strong for what the passage says). Every option containing Statement 4 — (c), (d) — falls to the out-of-scope trap (a claim the passage never makes — availability never discussed). Only (b) keeps exactly the two text-entailed inferences. The transferable rule: an absolute “solely/only” against a passage that names multiple sources is almost always the plant, and a claim the passage never touches cannot be an inference. Key: (b).

Statement 2: “The increasing wastage also results in land degradation by about 45%” — land degradation adversely affects land productivity (fair inference) → valid. Statement 3: “The energy spent over wasted food results in about 3.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide production every year” — so reducing waste reduces the carbon footprint (fair inference) → valid. Statement 1 is FALSE: the passage says loss occurs “throughout the supply chain, from initial agricultural production to final household consumption,” not “solely” via distribution (over-strong + contradicted). Statement 4 is out of scope: the passage never says post-harvest technologies “are not available.” Valid inferences = 2 and 3 → (b).

Statement 1 — distribution methods are solely responsible. The passage explicitly says loss occurs across the entire supply chain “from initial agricultural production to final household consumption.” Distribution is one stage of many; “solely” is false. Not a valid inference.

Statement 2 — land productivity adversely affected. “The increasing wastage also results in land degradation by about 45%.” Land degradation reduces productivity — a direct inference. Valid.

Statement 3 — reduction in loss → lesser carbon footprint. “The energy spent over wasted food results in about 3.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide production every year.” Less waste means less of that energy and CO₂ — a direct inference. Valid.

Statement 4 — post-harvest technologies are not available. The passage says nothing about the availability of post-harvest technologies. Out of scope — not a valid inference.

Valid inferences are 2 and 3 only. Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only.

Two distractor patterns do all the work here: the over-strong absolute (Statement 1’s “solely” against a multi-stage passage) and the claim the passage never makes (Statement 4’s availability of technologies, never mentioned). The scoring move is to test each numbered statement against a quotable line — 2 and 3 each have one; 1 is contradicted and 4 has none — and then pick the code that contains exactly the supported set. Every wrong code includes at least one of the two trap statements.