Skip to main contentSkip to solution

Until a hundred years ago as humans, we had a simple, uncomplicated biological connect with nature. It was a straightforward equation: we drew roughly 3, 000 calories each of energy out of the Earth for our food and life's sustenance. Today that number per capita has grown to 1, 00, 000 calories. We still need only 3, 000 calories each to nourish life itself. All the rest of this energy is what we extract from the Earth for everything else besides keeping ourselves alive.

How to soften this abuse of resources? What is sustainable development? How can it be started in our homes? Beyond the ceremonial planting of green and getting people to run marathons of various lengths in support of the environment, is there more that we can add to the abstract value of "sustainability"? What are the little things we can do in our day-to-day lives, to reduce the demand for things that people make and market? Of course, we know that it helps to avoid a plastic bag when you can use a newspaper bag, or a brown bag, or even a jute bag, which you can use for many more years.

However, there's actually quite a bit more than you and I can do, with very little as cost incurred, and with solutions that are very feasible and within our reach. It is possible to understand our ecological footprint and its disastrous consequences, in terms of the impact on the environment that we make.

Which one of the following statements cannot be inferred from the passage?

Solution

✅ Correct Option: 3

Option 1 -> The passage mentions "little things we can do in our day-to-day lives" and "quite a bit more than you and I can do" - this CAN be inferred.

Option 2 -> The passage says "Beyond the ceremonial planting of green and getting people to run marathons...is there more that we can add" - implying marathons alone are insufficient - this CAN be inferred.

Option 3 -> The passage explicitly states "we drew roughly 3,000 calories each of energy out of the Earth for our food and life's sustenance" - this directly contradicts the statement - this CANNOT be inferred.

Option 4 -> The passage begins with "Until a hundred years ago...we had a simple, uncomplicated biological connect with nature" - this CAN be inferred.


Hence, Option 3 -> The passage clearly establishes that we DO depend on Earth for food and life sustenance (drawing 3,000 calories from Earth), making this statement a direct contradiction rather than an inference -> correct

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question