2025 CSAT — Q44

Locate. This is a valid-assumption question, so separate what the argument needs from what it merely recommends. The passage’s argument is that reuse makes sense even as consumption quadruples; its recommendation is that spent batteries “should go back to a factory” for recovery. The premise the argument leans on is that economic growth and circular reuse can go together — Statement II.

Test (the negation test). Negate II — suppose growth were incompatible with circular use of minerals — and the passage’s “reusing makes sense [despite quadrupled consumption]” recommendation collapses. So II is load-bearing: valid. Negate I — “automobile factories are not examples of the circular economy” — and the passage is untouched, because the passage prescribes that batteries should return to factories (a future-state recommendation); it never claims factories already are circular-economy examples (indeed “less than 9%” is reused today). I is not assumed.

Eliminate by anatomy. (a) and (c) admit I, which states what’s concluded rather than what’s presumed and also imports a claim the passage never makes — it treats a prescription (“batteries should return to factories”) as if the passage asserted an existing fact (“factories are circular-economy examples”). (d) wrongly rejects II, the growth-circularity bridge. The transferable rule: a “should” sentence is a recommendation, not a stated example; don’t promote it into an assumption the argument makes. Key: (b).

Statement II: the passage argues that amid quadrupled raw-material consumption, “Reusing materials makes sense” and ingredients “can be recovered and put into new batteries” — this recommendation presumes growth and circular reuse can coexist (II). Statement I: the passage says batteries should go back to a factory for recovery (a prescription); it does NOT state that automobile factories are examples of the circular economy — currently “less than 9%” is reused, so factories are not presented as existing circular-economy exemplars.

Statement II. The passage urges reuse precisely because consumption has quadrupled — i.e. it assumes that continued economic activity (growth) is compatible with recovering and reusing materials. Negate II and the recommendation to reuse amid growth makes no sense. II is valid.

Statement I. The passage says spent batteries “should go back to a factory where their ingredients can be recovered” — a prescription for what ought to happen. It does not assert that automobile factories are examples of the circular economy; with “less than 9%” of materials reused today, the passage describes a goal, not an existing exemplar. Negating I leaves the argument intact. I is invalid.

Answer: (b) II only.

The trap (I) confuses what the passage wants to happen with what it says is true. “Batteries should go back to a factory” is aspirational; turning it into “automobile factories are circular-economy examples” mistakes a recommendation for a description — especially when the passage itself reports under 9% is currently reused. The valid assumption (II) is the quieter premise the whole recommendation rests on: that you can keep growing and reuse. Read the “should” as a recommendation, not as an existing fact you can assume.