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?

The passage discusses the challenge of achieving net-zero carbon and the role of demand-side (individual behavior) and supply-side (companies and governments) measures. Let's analyze each statement: I. Supply-side investments in companies can result in low-carbon behaviour in people. The passage states that "companies and governments to provide more incentives to change through supply-side investments to make low-carbon options cheaper and more widely available." The purpose of making low-carbon options cheaper and more widely available is to facilitate and encourage individuals to adopt them, thereby leading to low-carbon behavior. This directly supports the idea that supply-side investments can influence and result in low-carbon behavior in people. Thus, this is a valid assumption. II. People are not capable of adapting low-carbon behaviour without the involvement of Government and Companies. The passage says "at best, half the reduction might be achieved through demand-side measures... And even that would require companies and governments to provide more incentives..." This implies that while some individual behavioral change is possible, achieving the *desired level* of reduction (even half) *would require* external support. The statement "People are not capable" is very strong and an overgeneralization. The passage does not claim that individuals are utterly incapable of *any* low-carbon behavior on their own; rather, it suggests that significant, goal-oriented reductions (like the "half reduction" mentioned) necessitate government and company involvement. Individuals can adopt some low-carbon behaviors independently (e.g., walking more, reducing waste), even if not enough to meet large-scale targets. Therefore, this assumption is too strong and not fully supported by the passage. Based on the analysis, only Statement I is a valid assumption. The final answer is A