Maintaining an ecosystem just to conserve biodiversity will affect its commercial potential as well as the livelihoods dependent on the ecosystem. There is also a conflict between using an ecosystem only for livelihoods, for commercial exploitation, or strictly for conservation. Deforestation caused due to commercial exploitation will lead to indirect harm like floods, siltation problems and microclimatic instability, apart from adversely affecting livelihoods dependent on forests. These conflicts are particularly acute in developing countries where the dependence of people on the ecosystem is significant, and commercial exploitation has the potential to boost national income.

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

I. No country needs ecosystems to depend boost national income.

II. Resource-rich countries need to share their resources with those of scant the resources so as to prevent degradation of ecosystems.

Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

The history of renewable energy suggests there is a steep learning curve, meaning that, as more is produced, costs fall rapidly because of economies of scale and learning by doing. The firms' green innovation is path-dependent: the more a firm does, the more it is likely to do in the future. The strongest evidence for this is the collapse in the price of solar energy, which became about $90 \%$ cheaper during the 2010s, repeatedly beating forecasts. Moving early and gradually gives economies more time to adjust, allowing them to reap the benefits of pathdependent green investment without much disruption. A late, more chaotic transition is costlier.

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

The history of renewable energy suggests there is a steep learning curve, meaning that, as more is produced, costs fall rapidly because of economies of scale and learning by doing. The firms' green innovation is path-dependent: the more a firm does, the more it is likely to do in the future. The strongest evidence for this is the collapse in the price of solar energy, which became about $90 \%$ cheaper during the 2010s, repeatedly beating forecasts. Moving early and gradually gives economies more time to adjust, allowing them to reap the benefits of pathdependent green investment without much disruption. A late, more chaotic transition is costlier.

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

I. Path-dependent green investments will eventually most likely benefit growth as well as public finances in a country like India.

II. If other green technologies follow the same pattern as that of solar energy, there will most likely be an easy green transition.

Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

Each State in India faces a distinctive set of challenges regarding the impact of warming, but also offers its own set of opportunities for reducing emissions depending on its natural resources. For example, coastal States need to take action to protect their shores from sea level rise, districts that are drier need to prepare for variable monsoon precipitation. Himalayan regions have their own unique challenges, and selected parts of peninsular India and offshore areas offer great opportunities for harnessing wind power. These various aspects need to be considered for developing clear and sustainable goals for the future.

Which one of the following statements best and reflects the most logical, rational pragmatic message conveyed by the author of the passage?