Maintaining an ecosystem just to conserve biodiversity will affect its commercial potential as well as the liv

Question

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 to depend on ecosystems to boost national income.

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

Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

Accepted Answer

The passage explicitly states that "commercial exploitation has the potential to boost national income" in developing countries, directly contradicting Assumption I which claims no country needs to depend on ecosystems for this purpose.

Assumption II introduces the idea of resource sharing between countries, which is not mentioned or implied anywhere in the passage. The passage focuses on the internal conflicts within countries (particularly developing ones) regarding their own ecosystems and the balance between conservation, livelihoods, and commercial exploitation.

Since neither assumption is supported or implied by the passage, option D is correct.

Answer

I only

Answer

II only

Answer

Both I and II

Answer

Neither I nor II

Explanation

Related questions