QUESTION

CSAT

Medium

Maths

Prelims 2026

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?

S3 is a counterpoint to S1
S3 is unconnected to S1 and S2
S2 could be the reason for S3

Select the answer using the code given below.

Select an option to attempt

Explanation

To determine the correct relationships between the statements, let us analyze them individually and logically:

Understanding the Statements:

S1 asserts that protecting the environment is an absolute necessity (existential exigency) because of climate change.
S2 points out a lack of scientific consensus regarding exactly how much humans contribute to climate change.
S3 observes that environmental activism sometimes includes extreme views or alarmism, which climate change deniers then use as a target to discredit the movement.

Evaluating the Given Relationships:

1. S3 is a counterpoint to S1: A counterpoint to S1 would need to argue that protecting the environment is not an existential necessity. S3 merely comments on the nature of some environmental activism and the tactics of climate deniers; it does not negate the need to protect the environment. Therefore, Relationship 1 is incorrect.

2. S3 is unconnected to S1 and S2: If S3 were unconnected, it would share no logical or causal link with the other statements. However, S3 is directly related to S2. The lack of definitive scientific consensus (S2) creates an environment of uncertainty. This uncertainty is exactly why some activists might resort to alarmism to force urgent action, and why deniers exploit those extreme views to justify their skepticism (S3). Because a clear link exists, Relationship 2 is incorrect.

3. S2 could be the reason for S3: As established above, the absence of a precise scientific consensus on the extent of human intervention (S2) provides the very breeding ground for both climate alarmism (to compensate for the lack of consensus) and climate denial (exploiting the lack of consensus). Thus, S2 acts as a logical catalyst or reason for the phenomena described in S3. Therefore, Relationship 3 is correct.

Logical Shortcut (Elimination Method): Notice the inherent logical contradictions in the options:

Relationship 2 claims S3 is unconnected to S1 and S2.
Relationship 1 claims S3 is a counterpoint to S1 (a connection).
Relationship 3 claims S2 is the reason for S3 (a connection).

Relationship 2 is mutually exclusive with both 1 and 3. A statement cannot be "unconnected" to another while simultaneously being its "counterpoint" or having it as a "reason".