2025 CSAT — Q62

Locate. This is a valid-assumption question — find the unstated premise the argument leans on — and watch which mechanism the passage actually names. The passage’s employment claim is explicit (“It generates jobs… no other way to fix… unemployment without… private business”) — that is Statement I. For the marginalized, the passage names a specific route: corporate revenues → the State → welfare and a level playing field.

Test — negate it, and check the mechanism. Negate I — suppose corporate capitalism does not provide employment — and the passage’s anti-unemployment argument collapses. So I is valid. Statement II says the marginalized benefit “due to trickle-down effect.” Negate II — “they are not benefited by trickle-down” — and the passage is not contradicted, because the passage never claimed market trickle-down; it claimed benefit via State-revenue-funded welfare, a deliberate redistribution. II attaches the wrong mechanism, so it is not the assumption the passage makes.

Eliminate by anatomy. (b) and (c) admit II, which gets the cause-and-effect direction wrong — it swaps the passage’s State-welfare channel for a market trickle-down channel, which are different (one is deliberate redistribution, the other is automatic market spillover). (d) wrongly rejects I, the explicit employment premise. The transferable rule: a benefit the passage routes through one mechanism is not an assumption when restated through a different mechanism. Key: (a).

Why this one is tricky (a close call). Statement II is a fine call: the passage clearly says the marginalized benefit, so it is tempting to accept II as “substantially” what the passage assumes. II is invalid because the passage’s stated channel is State-revenue-funded welfare/redistribution — the opposite of a laissez-faire “trickle-down effect.” The mechanism mismatch is the whole point: a benefit the passage routes through deliberate redistribution is not an assumption when restated as automatic market spillover. Key: (a).

Statement I: “It generates jobs — and there is no other way to fix a country’s unemployment challenge without a further impetus to private business” — the argument relies on corporate capitalism providing employment (I). Statement II: the passage routes benefit to the marginalized through STATE REVENUE and welfare (“additional revenues for the State — which… can be used for greater welfare for the marginalized”), i.e. deliberate redistribution — NOT a market “trickle-down effect.” II misattributes the mechanism the passage actually states.

Statement I. The passage states corporate capitalism “generates jobs” and that there is “no other way to fix a country’s unemployment challenge without a further impetus to private business.” Providing employment is exactly the premise the anti-unemployment argument rests on. Negate I and that argument falls. I is valid.

Statement II. The passage does say the marginalized are benefited — but specifically because “a vibrant corporate capitalist base… leads to additional revenues for the State — which in turn, can be used for greater welfare for the marginalized.” That is benefit via State redistribution, not via a market “trickle-down effect.” II names the wrong mechanism; negating “trickle-down” does not contradict the passage’s State-welfare claim. II is invalid (mechanism mismatch).

Answer: (a) I only.

II is the trap that rewards reading the mechanism, not just the outcome. Both “trickle-down” and the passage’s route end in “the marginalized benefit,” so a fast reader equates them. But trickle-down is an automatic market spillover; the passage’s route is State revenue deliberately spent on welfare — a redistribution, even an anti-trickle-down stance. CSAT valid-assumption items reward catching that the passage assumed a different causal channel than the option asserts.