CSAT Solved Papers/ 2025/Q34
2025 CSAT — Q34
Passage
If there is inequality in the pattern of population growth, there is greater inequality in food production and utilization. As societies become wealthier, their consumption of animal products increases. This means that a greater proportion of such basic foodstuff as grains and legumes that could feed humans directly is instead being converted into feed for poultry and large farm animals. Yet this conversion of plant-based food into animal food for humans is far from efficient. Only 16% of the calories fed to chickens are recovered by us when we eat them. This conversion rate goes down to five to seven per cent in large animals that are fed grain to add fat and some protein before slaughter.
With reference to the above passage, the following assumptions have been made:
I. The food manufacturing and processing industries in every country should align their objectives and processes in accordance with the changing needs of the societies.
II. Wealthier societies tend to incur great loss of calories of food materials due to indirect utilization of their agricultural produce.
Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?
Thinking pathway
Locate. This is a valid-assumption question, so find the premise the argument leans on. The passage’s argument is: wealth → more animal products → grain converted to feed → calories lost (16%, then 5–7%). The premise that makes this a story about wealthy societies wasting calories is that wealthier societies lose calories through indirect (animal-routed) use of produce — Statement II.
Test (the negation test). Negate II — suppose wealthy societies do not lose calories through indirect use — and the passage’s entire efficiency argument collapses (there would be no calorie loss to report). So II is load-bearing: valid. Negate I — the passage never mentions food industries aligning to society’s changing needs, so there is nothing to negate; the argument runs without it. I is not assumed.
Eliminate by anatomy. (a) and (c) admit I, a claim the passage never actually makes — it borrows the “align objectives with society’s changing needs” framing (which fits the higher-education passage, not this one) and grafts it onto food industries the passage never discusses. (d) wrongly rejects II, the premise the calorie-loss argument cannot stand without. The transferable rule: the valid assumption is the one the cited data exists to support; an attractive but off-topic “should align with society” claim is a foreign body. Key: (b).
Evidence in the text
Statement II: “As societies become wealthier, their consumption of animal products increases… a greater proportion of such basic foodstuff as grains and legumes that could feed humans directly is instead being converted into feed… far from efficient. Only 16% of the calories… are recovered” — the passage’s argument rests on wealthy societies losing calories through indirect (animal) use of grain. Statement I: the passage never discusses food industries aligning their objectives to society’s changing needs — that claim is outside the text.
Worked rationale
Statement II. The passage’s argument is built on the claim that as societies grow wealthier, more grain is routed through animals, and that route is grossly inefficient (only 16% / 5–7% of calories recovered). This is “great loss of calories… due to indirect utilization.” The argument needs it; negate II and the calorie-loss thesis disappears. II is valid.
Statement I. “Food manufacturing and processing industries… should align their objectives… with the changing needs of the societies” is not in this passage at all — it is a societal-alignment claim with no basis here (it echoes a different theme). Negating I leaves the argument intact. I is invalid (out of scope).
Answer: (b) II only.
Why the other options miss
- A a claim the passage never actually makes: selects the “industries should align with society” claim that the passage never makes, and misses the calorie-loss premise it rests on.
- C half right, half wrong: correctly takes II but admits the unsupported I.
- D a step the text doesn’t license: over-rejects; fails to see that the inefficiency argument presupposes wealthy societies’ indirect calorie loss (II).
Specialist insight
The trap (I) is seductive because “industries should adapt to society’s needs” is a perfectly reasonable sentence — it just belongs to a different kind of passage. This passage is about calorie-conversion efficiency, and its load-bearing assumption (II) is exactly the indirect-utilization loss the numbers quantify. The discipline: anchor the assumption to this passage’s actual argument, and reject the plausible sentence that floats in from the topic at large.
I grafts a "should align with society" framing the passage never uses; II is the indirect-calorie-loss premise the data exists to prove — (b).