CAT 2025 Question Paper | VARC Slot 3

The only way to master VARC during your CAT Preparation is by practicing actual CAT question paper. Practice RCs with detailed video and text solutions from Previous CAT Question Papers.

The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.

In 1982, a raging controversy broke out over a forest act drafted by the Government of India. This act sought to strengthen the already extensive powers enjoyed by the forest bureaucracy in controlling the extraction, disposal and sale of forest produce. It also gave forest officials greater powers to strictly regulate the entry of any person into reserved forest areas. While forest officials justified the act on the grounds that it was necessary to stop the continuing deforestation, it was bitterly opposed by representatives of grassroots organisations, who argued that it was a major violation of the rights of peasants and tribals living in and around forest areas. . . .

The debate over the draft forest act fuelled a larger controversy over the orientation of state forest policy. It was pointed out, for example, that the draft act was closely modelled on its predecessor, the Forest Act of 1878. The earlier Act rested on a usurpation of rights of ownership by the colonial state which had little precedent in precolonial history. It was further argued that the system of forestry introduced by the British—and continued, with little modification, after 1947—emphasised revenue generation and commercial exploitation, while its policing orientation excluded villagers who had the most longstanding claim on forest resources. Critics called for a complete overhaul of forest administration, pressing the government to formulate policy and legislation more appropriate to present needs. . . .

That debate is not over yet. The draft act was shelved, though it has not as yet been formally withdrawn. Meanwhile, the 1878 Act (as modified by an amendment in 1927) continues to be in operation. In response to its critics, the government has made some important changes in forest policy, e.g., no longer treating forests as a source of revenue, and stopping ecologically hazardous practices such as the clearfelling of natural forests. At the same time, it has shown little inclination to meet the major demand of the critics of forest policy—namely, abandoning the principle of state monopoly over forest land by handing over areas of degraded forests to individuals and communities for afforestation.

. . . [The] 1878 Forest Act itself was passed only after a bitter and prolonged debate within the colonial bureaucracy, in which protagonists put forward arguments strikingly similar to those being advanced today. As is well known, the Indian Forest Department owes its origin to the requirements of railway companies. The early years of the expansion of the railway network, c. 1853 onwards, led to tremendous deforestation in peninsular India owing to the railway’s requirements of fuelwood and construction timber. Huge quantities of durable timbers were also needed for use as sleepers across the newly laid tracks. Inexperienced in forestry, the British called in German experts to commence systematic forest management. The Indian Forest Department was started in 1864, with Dietrich Brandis, formerly a Lecturer at Bonn, as the first Inspector General of Forests. The new department needed legislative backing to function effectively, and in the following year, 1865, the first forest act was passed. . . .

Question 20 : All of the following, if true, would weaken the narrative presented in the passage EXCEPT that:

Explanatory Answer

The question asks us to choose the option that would not weaken the narrative presented in the passage.
Consider option 1. The passage says that the expansion of the railway network from 1853 onwards led to tremendous deforestation in peninsular India. If option 1 were true and the timber requirements of railways in India were met through imports from China, then what the passage says would be weakened. So, option 1 is not the choice we are looking for.
Consider option 2. The passage says the British called in German experts to commence systematic forest management. It also says the forest acts of the nineteenth century emphasised revenue generation and commercial exploitation, while its policing orientation excluded villagers. If it were true that nineteenth century German forestry experts were infamous for violating the rights of indigenous communities that lived in forest regions, then it would only strengthen what the passage says about the colonial era thinking with regard to forests. Option 2 is the answer choice that we are looking for.
Let us still rule out the other options. Option 3 says that even before British rule, peasants and tribals were denied access to forests. This contradicts what the passage says about these groups, that they had 'the most longstanding claim on forest resources'. So, option 3, if true, would weaken the passage's claims. In the same way, if option 4 were true and tribal groups indulged in mass scale deforestation, then the narrative presented in the passage would be weakened as the passage argues for the handing over of degraded forests to individuals and communities for afforestation. So, option 4 is also not the correct choice.
The correct answer is option 2.

The question is " All of the following, if true, would weaken the narrative presented in the passage EXCEPT that: "

Hence, the answer is 'nineteenth century German forestry experts were infamous for violating the rights of indigenous communities that lived in forest regions.'

Choice 2 is the correct answer.

Verbal Ability for CAT | CAT Reading Comprehension

Verbal Ability for CAT| CAT Para Jumble

Verbal Ability for CAT | CAT Sentence Elimination

Verbal Ability for CAT | CAT Paragraph Completion

Verbal Ability for CAT | CAT Critical Reasoning

Verbal Ability for CAT | CAT Word Usage

Verbal Ability for CAT| CAT Para Summary

Verbal Ability for CAT | CAT Text Completion

Verbal Ability for CAT | CAT Sentence Correction