Passage Now India's children have a right to receive at least eight years of education, the gnawing question is whether' it will remain 'on paper' or 'become a reality. One hardly needs a reminder that this right is different from the others enshrined in the Constitution, that the beneficiary - a six year old child cannot demand it, nor can she or he fight a legal battle when the right is denied or violated. In all cases, it is the adult society which must act on behalf of the child. In another peculiarity, where a child's right to education is denied, no compensation offered later can be adequate or relevant. This is so because childhood does not last if a legal battle fought on behalf of a child is eventually won, it may be of little use to the boy or girl because the opportunity missed at school during childhood cannot serve the same purpose later in life. This may be painfully true for girls because our society permits them only a short childhood, if at all. The Right to Education (RTE) has become law at a point in India's history when the ghastly practice of female infanticide has resurfaced in the form of foeticide. This is "symptomatic of a deeper turmoil" in society which compounding the traditional obstacles to the education of girls. "Tenacious prejudice against the intellectual potential of girls runs across our cultural diversity and the system of education has not been able to address it. Which one of the following statements conveys the inference of the passage?

The passage emphasizes that if a child's right to education is denied, "no compensation offered later can be adequate or relevant" and "the opportunity missed at school during childhood cannot serve the same purpose later in life." This directly conveys that there is no sufficient substitute for education received during childhood. Analysis of options: A) The society has a tenacious prejudice against the intellectual potential of girls. This is a direct statement made in the passage ("Tenacious prejudice against the intellectual potential of girls runs across our cultural diversity...") rather than an inference of the entire passage. While true according to the text, it's a specific detail, not the overarching inference. B) Adults cannot be relied upon to fight on behalf of children for their Right to Education. The passage states that "adult society which must act on behalf of the child" and raises the "gnawing question" of whether the right will become a reality, implying concern. However, it doesn't definitively state that adults *cannot be relied upon*, but rather highlights their crucial role and the challenge. This is too strong an inference. C) The legal fight to get education for children is often protracted and prohibitive. The passage mentions that if a legal battle is "eventually won, it may be of little use" due to missed opportunity. This implies that legal battles can be delayed, but the passage doesn't explicitly detail them as "protracted and prohibitive" in terms of length or cost, focusing more on the consequence of delay for the child. D) There is no sufficient substitute for education received in childhood. This statement is directly supported by the passage's argument that "no compensation offered later can be adequate or relevant" and that "the opportunity missed at school during childhood cannot serve the same purpose later in life." This is a core inference the passage wants to convey about the unique and time-sensitive nature of childhood education.