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been formally withdrawn.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:
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: "
Choice 2 is the correct answer.
Copyrights © All Rights Reserved by 2IIM.com - A Fermat Education Initiative.
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions
CAT® (Common Admission Test) is a registered trademark of the Indian
Institutes of Management. This website is not endorsed or approved by IIMs.
2IIM Online CAT Coaching
A Fermat Education Initiative,
19/43, MG Chakrapani St,
Sathya Garden, Saligramam, Chennai 600 093
Mobile: (91) 99626 48484 / 94459
38484
WhatsApp: WhatsApp Now
Email: info@2iim.com