2025 CSAT — Q24

Locate. This is a valid-assumption question, so separate what the argument needs from a stronger or different claim a reader might infer. The passage’s argument is narrow: the single-tradition narrative that legitimizes State support is contested, and promoting handloom under that narrative alienates large sections. Test each candidate against that argument.

Test (the negation test). Statement I — “no need for the State to be involved in any manner.” Negate it (suppose some State involvement is fine) — the passage’s argument survives, because the passage attacks the narrative basis of support, not all involvement. So I is not assumed; it overshoots. Statement II — “handloom products are no longer appealing… in the modern world.” Negate it (suppose products are still appealing) — the argument is untouched, because the passage blames the narrative, not product appeal, for people ignoring handloom. Neither is needed.

Eliminate by anatomy. (a) and (c) admit I, which over-states the case — “in any manner” is an absolutist leap from the passage’s critique of one basis for support. (b) and (c) admit II, which invents a cause the passage doesn’t state — it swaps the passage’s stated cause (the narrative) for a different one (product unattractiveness). The transferable rule: an assumption that is stronger than the argument needs (I), or that re-attributes the cause the passage gave (II), is not valid. Key: (d).

Statement I: the passage criticizes the single-tradition narrative used to justify State support (“provides a legitimate basis for the State to support the sector… But the notion of tradition as a single, linear entity is being strongly contested”), but never argues the State should not be involved “in any manner” — that absolutist claim overshoots the text. Statement II: the passage attributes large sections ignoring handloom to the contested tradition-narrative, NOT to products being unappealing in the modern world — that cause is not in the text.

Statement I. The passage questions the narrative (“tradition as a single, linear entity”) that provides “a legitimate basis for the State to support the sector.” Criticizing the justification for support is not the same as claiming the State should not be involved “in any manner.” That absolutist claim is far stronger than anything the argument needs; negating it leaves the argument intact. I is invalid.

Statement II. The passage explains that large sections ignore handloom because it is promoted under a contested single-tradition narrative — not because the products are unappealing in a modern world. II substitutes a different cause the text never gives. Negating it changes nothing in the argument. II is invalid.

Both fail. Answer: (d) Neither I nor II.

Both statements are calibrated traps. I is too strong — “in any manner” turns a critique of one justification into a blanket “no involvement” the passage never makes. II is the wrong cause — it sounds like a modern-market explanation but the passage’s own explanation is the narrative, not product appeal. On a valid-assumption question, watch for the absolutist quantifier (“any”) and the silently-swapped cause; both are how a true-sounding statement fails the negation test.