]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 path- dependent 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?

The passage highlights that renewable energy costs fall rapidly due to learning and economies of scale, making green innovation path-dependent. It uses the collapse in solar energy prices (90% cheaper) as evidence. It also states that an early, gradual transition allows economies to reap benefits without much disruption, while a late, chaotic one is costlier.

Statement I: Path-dependent green investments will eventually most likely benefit growth as well as public finances in a country like India. The passage states that moving early and gradually allows economies to "reap the benefits of path-dependent green investment without much disruption." The rapid fall in costs (like solar becoming 90% cheaper) implies significant economic advantages. Cheaper energy and less disruption would indeed benefit economic growth and improve public finances by reducing energy costs and potential subsidies, and fostering new industries. Therefore, this is a valid assumption.

Statement II: If other green technologies follow the same pattern as that of solar energy, there will most likely be an easy green transition. The passage uses solar energy's price collapse as the "strongest evidence" for the cost-reduction pattern. It also contrasts an early, gradual transition (which allows economies to "reap the benefits... without much disruption") with a "late, more chaotic transition [which] is costlier." If other green technologies follow solar's pattern of rapid cost reduction, and if a country manages an early and gradual transition, then the transition would indeed be "easy" or at least "without much disruption," leading to benefits rather than chaos. This is a valid assumption.

Since both statements are valid assumptions based on the passage, option C is correct.

The final answer is C