If there is inequality in the pattern of population growth, there is greater inequality in food production and utilisation. 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.

Which one of the following statements best reflects the crux of the passage?

If there is inequality in the pattern of population growth, there is greater inequality in food production and utilisation. 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 utilisation of their agricultural produce.

Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

Over the next 30 years, many countries are promising to move to net-zero carbon, implying that household emissions will have to be cut to close to nothing. A leading climate scientist reckons that, at best, half the reduction might be achieved through demand-side measures, such as behavioural changes by individuals and households. And 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.

Which one of the following statements best reflects the central idea conveyed by the passage?

Over the next 30 years, many countries are promising to move to net-zero carbon, implying that household emissions will have to be cut to close to nothing. A leading climate scientist reckons that, at best, half the reduction might be achieved through demand-side measures, such as behavioural changes by individuals and households. And 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.

With reference to the above passage, the following assumptions have been made:

I. Supply-side investments in companies can result in low-carbon behaviour in people.

II. People are not capable of adapting low-carbon behaviour without the involvement of Government and Companies.

Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?