2024 CSAT — Q2

Locate. This is a valid-assumption question: there is no line to point at — an assumption is unstated. So don’t hunt for a matching sentence; find the passage’s actual claim, then test each candidate against the boundaries it draws. The passage’s claim: food is lost across the whole supply chain (production to household), with environmental costs, and addressing it in all forms is critical to food sustainability.

Test (negation test + the three-boundary check). Run each statement past three checks — does it bring in an actor or thing the passage never names, does it invent a cause the passage never claims, and does it change the passage’s level of certainty — crossing any one makes it invalid (doctrine §6). Statement 1 names a specific remedy — reimagining the “food distribution mechanism.” But the passage spreads the blame across the entire chain “from initial agricultural production to final household consumption” and never singles out distribution. That brings in a remedy the text doesn’t draw — the check fails, invalid. Confirm by negation: suppose distribution need not be reimagined; the passage’s case (loss is everywhere, address all forms) is untouched, so 1 was never assumed. Statement 2 imports “social and moral responsibility of all citizens” — new actors (citizens) and a new moral framing onto a passage that argues sustainability necessity, not civic duty. It brings in actors the passage never names — invalid. Negate it (it is not all citizens’ moral duty) and the passage still stands.

Eliminate by anatomy. (a)/(c) admit Statement 1 — a claim the passage never actually makes: a sensible-sounding policy remedy the passage never raises, one that introduces a remedy the passage never mentions. (b)/(c) admit Statement 2, the same trap — a moral-duty framing imported from outside the text. The transferable rule on valid-assumption questions: a true-sounding remedy or duty is not an assumption unless the passage’s own argument leans on it. Key: (d).

Statement 1: the passage attributes loss to the whole chain — “Food is lost or wasted throughout the supply chain, from initial agricultural production to final household consumption” — and never names “distribution” as the lever to reimagine, so 1 adds a remedy/entity not in the text (ENTITY boundary). Statement 2: the passage says “Addressing the loss and wastage of food in all forms is critical to complete the cycle of food sufficiency and food sustainability” — it frames the matter as critical for sustainability, never as a “social and moral responsibility of all citizens,” so 2 adds actors (citizens) and a moral framing not in the text (ENTITY boundary). Both invalid → (d).

The passage’s argument: one-third of food is lost across the supply chain; this drives land degradation and emissions; addressing loss in all forms is critical to food sustainability.

Statement 1 — reimagine the distribution mechanism. The passage names loss “throughout the supply chain, from initial agricultural production to final household consumption.” It does not locate the problem in distribution specifically, nor propose redesigning it. Negate the statement — distribution need not be reimagined — and the passage’s argument survives intact (loss is everywhere; address all forms). So it is not a premise the argument needs. Invalid (adds a remedy/entity outside the text).

Statement 2 — social and moral responsibility of all citizens. The passage frames addressing loss as “critical to complete the cycle of food sufficiency and food sustainability” — a necessity argument, not a civic-duty argument. “All citizens,” “social and moral responsibility” appear nowhere and are not what the argument rests on. Negate it and the passage is unaffected. Invalid (adds actors and a moral framing outside the text).

Neither is an assumption the passage makes. Answer: (d) Neither 1 nor 2.

This question type punishes the reader who upgrades a reasonable statement to an assumed one. Both distractor statements are things a thoughtful person might endorse — fix distribution, treat waste as everyone’s duty — but neither is a premise this passage’s argument leans on. The scoring move is the entity boundary: every load-bearing noun in a valid assumption must trace to the text. “Distribution mechanism” and “all citizens” do not. Hence (d).