Question

According to the author, the various constituents of the environment are

• A. Supplementary
• B. independent
• C. mutually exclusive
• D. interdependent
• A. understanding the cause
• B. analysis of the existent resources
• C. planning
• D. sound implementation of ideas
• A. I only
• B. I and II
• C. II and III
• D. All I, II and III
• A. incoming sunlight
• B. trapping gases
• C. gaseous radiation
• D. lower air-layers
• A. half of what is needed
• B. adequate
• C. adequate for mangroves
• D. None of these
• A. genetically modified rice for eating
• B. food grains produced by robots
• C. drinks containing artificial flavours and preservations
• D. All of the above
• A. are easy to use
• B. are easily produced
• C. kill only pesticides
• D. are biodegradable
• A. NGOs should monitor the environmental angle of industrial activity.
• B. Governmental influence on industrial awareness about environmental matters needs to be stepped up.
• C. Industries should bear the burden of cleaning their effluents.
• D. Industries should switch over to natural products while manufacturing products.
• A. I and II
• B. Only II
• C. Only III
• D. II and III
• A. analysis
• B. expression of despair
• C. intellectual pursuit
• D. exhortation

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
We need to pick the word that best describes how the author sees the different parts of the environment, such as flora, fauna, birds, animals and humans, relating to one another.

Step 2: Key Approach.
Go back to the exact sentence the author uses about these parts and match its meaning against each option, rather than guessing from general knowledge about ecology.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation.
The passage states: "Flora and fauna, birds, animals and, of course, humans play a vital role. Touch one adversely and all suffer."
This sentence describes a direct link: an adverse action on any single part spreads its effect to every other part.
"Supplementary" only means an extra addition, which is far weaker than a relationship where damage to one causes suffering in all.
"Independent" and "mutually exclusive" both describe parts that do not affect each other, which directly contradicts the sentence about shared suffering.
The only word that captures a system where every part relies on and is affected by the rest is "interdependent".

Step 4: Final Answer.
The various constituents of the environment are described as interdependent, matching option (4).

Answer 2

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
We must find what the author considers the very first step needed before any remedy for environmental disasters can be applied.

Step 2: Key Approach.
Trace the order of ideas the author lays out: what is missing today, what needs to happen first, and what follows after that.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation.
The author begins by pointing out a problem: "No effort is made to understand the reasons for these recurring disasters... Unless and until we make an effort to understand, these disasters will continue."
This tells us the missing piece today is understanding, not planning or resources.
Further on, the author writes, "Once we understand the causes, it is easy to take to remedial measures. This brings us to planning," which places understanding strictly before planning in the chain.
Resource analysis and implementation are never framed as the starting point anywhere in the passage; they would, at best, come later once a plan already exists.

Step 4: Final Answer.
The first step toward any remedy, as the author lays it out, is understanding the cause, option (1).

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
We are given three statements and must find which ones cannot be logically drawn from the passage, since the passage only supports certain conclusions and not others.

Step 2: Key Approach.
For an inference question, a statement only counts as inferable if it stays within the scope of what the passage says. A statement that widens a specific claim into a general one, or that talks about something the passage never mentions, is not inferable, even if it sounds plausible.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation.
Statement I says cancer in general is incurable. The passage only says that the killer cancer linked to ozone depletion has "as yet" no cure, a narrow, present-tense claim about one cause of cancer, not a permanent verdict on cancer as a whole. Widening it this way is an overreach.
Statement II talks about "the present nature of men's interaction". The whole passage is about humanity's impact on the natural environment: warming, effluents, pesticides, forest cover. It never discusses how people interact with each other, so there is no basis in the text to judge that interaction as unsustainable.
Statement III says mother's milk is not advisable. The passage states plainly that mother's milk has been found to contain DDT, picked up from food grown with pesticides and agrochemicals. A contaminant like DDT in milk is a direct basis to call it not advisable, so this inference is reasonable and supported.
Since I and II both step outside what the passage supports, and III does not, the pair that is not inferable is I and II.

Step 4: Final Answer.
Statements I and II are not inferable from the passage, so the correct option is (2).

Answer 4

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
We must identify, from the author's own explanation, which single factor is being blamed for the greenhouse effect.

Step 2: Key Approach.
Break the passage's explanation into stages: the energy source, the location, the agents, and the action, then see which stage the author actually calls out as the cause.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation.
The passage says incoming sunlight carries a fixed energy value, about 3,100 watts per square yard, which is simply the input and happens with or without a greenhouse effect.
It then says the lower air layers contain gases like water vapour and carbon dioxide; this is only the location where the process occurs.
The critical sentence is that these gases, once warmed up, radiate part of the trapped heat back down to the earth's surface, and this radiated heat is what raises the surface temperature; the author calls this the green (greenhouse) effect.
"Trapping gases" describes the agents in a passive sense, but the actual harmful action is their radiating heat back to earth, which is best captured by "gaseous radiation".

Step 4: Final Answer.
The main culprit behind the greenhouse effect is gaseous radiation, matching option (3).

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
We need to describe, in rough terms, how India's forest cover compares to the forest cover a country is said to need.

Step 2: Key Approach.
Pull out the two relevant numbers from the passage and match the size of the gap between them to the closest option, since the question only asks for a rough description.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation.
The passage states a country needs more than 30 percent forest cover to keep its water cycle and seasons stable.
It then states India has less than 20 percent forest cover, a clear shortfall against the 30-plus percent benchmark.
"Adequate" and "adequate for mangroves" both claim India's cover is sufficient in some sense, which goes directly against the passage calling this a shortfall.
Between the remaining choices, "half of what is needed" is the only option that names a genuine, sizeable gap, matching the tone of the passage, so "None of these" is not required.

Step 4: Final Answer.
India's forest cover is roughly half of what is needed, option (1).

Answer 6

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
We need to judge, from the author's tone and values across the whole passage, which of the given practices the author would disapprove of.

Step 2: Key Approach.
Identify the author's recurring stance, favouring organic and traditional methods over artificial or chemically engineered ones, and test each option against that stance rather than against any one single line.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation.
The author praises organic fertilizers over chemical ones, and neem and tulsi over indiscriminate chemical pesticides, showing a clear bias toward natural methods.
Genetically modified rice changes a crop's natural genetic structure through engineering, which does not fit the author's natural, traditional preference.
Food grains produced by robots swap out organic, human-tended farming for mechanised production, again departing from the author's call to "go back to Nature."
Drinks with artificial flavours and preservatives are synthetic additives, comparable in spirit to the chemical pesticides the author wants reduced.
Since all three practices, genetic modification, robotic production, and artificial additives, sit on the same artificial side that the author consistently argues against, none of them would win the author's support.

Step 4: Final Answer.
All three listed practices would fail to get the author's support, so the correct option is (4), All of the above.

Answer 7

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
We must find the specific reason the passage gives for why neem is a better pesticide choice than ordinary chemical pesticides.

Step 2: Key Approach.
Locate the sentence that compares chemical pesticides with neem directly, and see exactly what difference the author points to.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation.
The passage first sets up the problem: "The indiscriminate use of pesticides kills both predatory and beneficial insects."
It then offers neem as the fix: "Let us bring back use of Neem for pesticides, which kills only predatory insects."
The contrast is clear, ordinary pesticides wipe out beneficial insects along with harmful ones, while neem is selective and leaves the beneficial insects alone.
None of the other options, ease of use, ease of production, or biodegradability, are the reasoning the passage actually gives; they are not discussed at all in this context.

Step 4: Final Answer.
Neem's superiority comes from its selective action, killing only the harmful pests, so the correct option is (3).

Answer 8

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
We must pin down exactly what responsibility the author assigns to industries when it comes to environmental effluents.

Step 2: Key Approach.
Read the effluent management paragraph closely and see who is asked to act, who merely advises, and who faces a penalty for inaction.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation.
The passage proposes a steering committee of government ministers, scientists, industries and NGOs to plan effluent management, but the actual obligation to install treatment devices, within a time-bound framework, falls on the industries.
It goes further and says industries that fail to install these devices must be shut down, and that no new industry can be permitted without proper effluent management already in place.
This shows the author holding industries directly accountable for cleaning up their own pollution, rather than leaving it to NGOs to merely monitor or to government awareness drives.
The idea of switching to natural products appears elsewhere in the passage, tied to farming and pesticides, not to industrial manufacturing broadly, so that option does not fit this specific question.

Step 4: Final Answer.
The author's view is that industries themselves must bear the burden of cleaning their effluents, option (3).

Answer 9

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
We need to test three topics, global warming, noise pollution and water pollution, against the passage and see which ones the author actually names and explains.

Step 2: Key Approach.
Scan the passage for each keyword or its clear equivalent, rather than assuming a topic is covered just because something loosely related appears.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation.
The phrase "global warming" appears directly in the passage, and the author spends an entire section explaining CO2, the greenhouse effect, and rising temperatures, so this topic is fully covered.
The word "noise" or any reference to sound-based pollution never appears anywhere in the passage, so this topic is simply absent from the text.
The passage does discuss industrial effluents and the need to treat them, but it never uses or explains the term "water pollution" as a named topic; it stays at the level of effluent management for industries, so this topic is also not explicitly covered.
Since only global warming is explicitly named and discussed, the two topics left out are noise pollution and water pollution.

Step 4: Final Answer.
The topics not covered by the author are noise pollution and water pollution, so the correct option is (4), II and III.

Answer 10

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
We need to characterise the passage as a whole, choosing the label that best fits what the author is mainly doing across the entire piece.

Step 2: Key Approach.
Weigh how much of the passage is spent explaining mechanisms and causes against how much is spent expressing emotion or simply urging the reader to act, then match that balance to the options.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation.
The passage devotes most of its length to explaining how things work: the CO2 and temperature link, the greenhouse mechanism of gases radiating heat back to earth, the life span of CO2 versus water vapour, the ozone-cancer link, the forest cover numbers, and the effluent management chain for industries.
This structured, cause-and-effect explanation is what "analysis" means.
The passage does contain warning notes ("courting irreversible disaster") and closing calls to action ("let us go back to Nature"), but these are brief bookends around the much larger analytical core, not the dominant mode of the passage.
"Expression of despair" would mean dwelling on hopelessness, which the author does not do, since concrete fixes are proposed throughout. "Intellectual pursuit" suggests exploring ideas out of pure curiosity, which does not match a passage tightly focused on practical environmental problems.

Step 4: Final Answer.
Given how much of the passage is devoted to explaining causes and mechanisms, it is best read as an attempt at analysis, option (1).