Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardInference and Logical Deduction

Read the following passage carefully:

Under the 2026 National Bio-Economy Resilience Framework, state governments are mandated to transition at least 35% of industrial processing units to bio-based feedstocks by 2030, provided that regional agricultural surpluses exceed local consumption thresholds for three consecutive fiscal years. To prevent ecological displacement, the framework explicitly stipulates that feedstocks must be derived strictly from secondary agricultural residues—such as husks, stalks, and bagasse—rather than dedicated primary bio-energy crops. Furthermore, state regulatory boards are empowered to grant conditional operational waivers to industrial processing units located in water-stressed ecological zones, but only if those units demonstrate a minimum 50% closed-loop water recirculation capability. However, securing an operational waiver does not automatically exempt a facility from the annual third-party carbon audit required for all registered bio-based processors under the nationwide climate compliance protocol.

Based strictly on the passage provided above, which of the following statements MUST be logically true?

  1. A state government cannot be subject to the 35% bio-based feedstock transition mandate under the 2026 framework unless its regional agricultural surpluses have exceeded local consumption thresholds for three consecutive fiscal years.Answer
  2. B
    Any industrial processing unit in a water-stressed ecological zone that achieves a 50% closed-loop water recirculation capability is guaranteed to receive an operational waiver.
  3. C
    Industrial processing units operating outside water-stressed ecological zones are completely exempt from the annual third-party carbon audit protocol.
  4. D
    The 2026 Framework imposes a total ban on the agricultural cultivation of dedicated primary bio-energy crops across the entire nation.

Answer

A state government cannot be subject to the 35% bio-based feedstock transition mandate under the 2026 framework unless its regional agricultural surpluses have exceeded local consumption thresholds for three consecutive fiscal years.
The correct option is logically necessary because the passage explicitly conditions the 35% transition mandate on regional agricultural surpluses exceeding local consumption thresholds for three consecutive fiscal years. Therefore, without fulfilling this condition, a state government cannot be subjected to the mandate under the framework.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the logical structure of the conditional premise regarding state mandates in the passage.
The phrase 'provided that regional agricultural surpluses exceed local consumption thresholds for three consecutive fiscal years' establishes a mandatory condition precedent for the transition mandate.
In formal logic and reading comprehension, 'provided that P, Q applies' means P is a necessary condition for Q to be mandated.
2
Evaluate the correct deduction against the passage statements.
If the mandate applies, the prerequisite condition of 3 consecutive fiscal years of surplus exceeding consumption must have been satisfied.
This directly matches the valid contrapositive and deductive structure of the premise without introducing unstated assumptions.
3
Analyze distractors for logical fallacies.
Distractors confuse necessary conditions with sufficient guarantees, misread scope of carbon audits, or overgeneralize feedstock restrictions into total crop bans.
Deductive inference requires strict adherence to necessary logical consequences without scope expansion.

Key Concept

Logical Deduction and Necessary Conditions in Reading Comprehension
Rate this question

Topics

Inference and Logical Deduction

More questions from this topic