2025 CSAT — Q42

Locate. This is a valid-assumption question, so find the premise the argument needs — and watch the strength of each candidate’s wording. The passage’s claim is that demand-side behaviour change “would require companies and governments to provide more incentives… through supply-side investments.” The premise that makes incentives matter is that supply-side investment can produce low-carbon behaviour — Statement I.

Test (the negation test + qualifier-match). Negate I — suppose supply-side investment cannot result in low-carbon behaviour — and the passage’s case for incentives collapses. So I is valid. Now II: the passage says behavioural change “would require” incentives — a statement about what is needed to achieve the reduction at scale. II reads this as people being “not capable” of low-carbon behaviour without involvement. Negate II — “people are capable without involvement” — and the passage is not actually contradicted, because “needs incentives to hit the target” is weaker than “incapable without them.” II inflates a necessity-for-scale into an incapacity-of-people — it changes the passage’s level of certainty.

Eliminate by anatomy. (b) and (c) admit II, which flips the passage’s level of certainty — upgrading the passage’s “would require incentives” into “not capable… without involvement.” (d) wrongly rejects I, the genuine causal premise. The transferable rule: match the strength of the qualifier — “is needed to achieve X” is not “is impossible without.” Key: (a).

Why this one is tricky (a close call). The I-vs-II call is a close emphasis read: the passage’s “would require companies and governments to provide more incentives” sits near the line between “incentives are needed to reach net-zero” (which makes I valid and II overstated) and “people cannot change without involvement” (which would validate II). Read it as the former — a necessity-for-scale claim, not a claim about human incapacity — and II changes the passage’s level of certainty, giving (a). The distinction is genuinely fine, which is what makes this the block’s hardest item.

Statement I: “even that would require companies and governments to provide more incentives to change through supply-side investments to make low-carbon options cheaper and more widely available” — the argument that incentives drive behaviour presumes supply-side investment can result in low-carbon behaviour (I). Statement II: the passage says behavioural change “would require” incentives to be achieved at scale; it does NOT say people are “not capable” of low-carbon behaviour without involvement — “needs incentives to achieve the target” is not “incapable without involvement,” so II overstates (hedge-flip).

Statement I. The passage argues that even demand-side behavioural change “would require companies and governments to provide more incentives to change through supply-side investments.” For incentives via supply-side investment to matter, the author must assume such investment can produce low-carbon behaviour in people. Negate I and the incentive argument falls. I is valid.

Statement II. “People are not capable of adapting low-carbon behaviour without the involvement of Government and Companies.” The passage says incentives “would be required” to achieve the reduction — a claim about what is needed to reach the target, not a claim that people are incapable of low-carbon behaviour on their own. II converts a necessity-for-scale into an incapacity, which the passage does not assert. Negating II does not contradict the passage. II is invalid (overstated).

Answer: (a) I only.

This is the block’s hardest item because II is almost right: the passage clearly thinks government and company involvement matters. The trap is the jump from “would require their incentives [to hit net-zero]” to “people are not capable without them.” The first is about sufficiency to reach the goal; the second is about human incapacity. Valid-assumption questions reward matching the qualifier’s strength exactly — a necessity claim is not an impossibility claim — which is why I is valid and II is not.