Consider the following three statements, namely S1, S2 and S3 : S1. Protecting the environment is an existential exigency for humans, given the impact of environmental degradation on climate change. S2. Scientific consensus has not been achieved with regard to the extent of the contribution of human intervention to climate change. S3. Environmental activism includes climate alarmism and other extremist points of view that often become the focus of climate change deniers. Which of the following relationships based on the statements given above is/are correct? 1. S3 is a counterpoint to S1 2. S3 is unconnected to S1 and S2 3. S2 could be the reason for S3 Select the answer using the code given below.

The correct answer is D (3 only). This question tests logical reasoning and reading comprehension regarding the global discourse on climate change.

Why the correct option is correct: Statement 2 (S2) posits a lack of scientific consensus on the extent of human contribution to climate change. Statement 3 (S3) notes that environmental activism includes "climate alarmism," which frequently becomes the target of climate deniers. Logically, S2 could be the reason for S3. The perceived ambiguity over scientific consensus can drive activists toward extreme narratives (alarmism) to force urgency. Conversely, climate deniers leverage this alleged lack of consensus (S2) to hyper-focus on discrediting the most extremist activist claims (S3) rather than debating the actual science.

(Note for aspirants: Factually, the UN's IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), published in August 2021, established an "unequivocal" consensus on human-induced climate change. However, in CSAT logical reasoning, we evaluate the causal linkage strictly presented in the premises).

Why the other options are wrong:

• Statement 1 (S3 is a counterpoint to S1): Incorrect. S1 asserts that protecting the environment is an "existential exigency" (an urgent necessity for human survival). S3 merely points out that extremist methods exist within the movement. Criticizing fringe activist methods does not negate the fundamental, existential necessity of environmental protection.
• Statement 2 (S3 is unconnected to S1 and S2): Incorrect. All three statements are deeply connected by the shared thematic framework of climate change, scientific debate, and environmental advocacy.

Takeaway: In logical reasoning questions, distinguish between a cause and its methods. A critique of the methods of a movement (alarmism) is rarely a logical counterpoint to the underlying validity of the movement itself.