Correct Option (B)
The passage critically examines the overemphasis on personal hygiene, particularly when influenced by market forces, stating that it creates a "false sense of security." It highlights that comprehensive environmental improvements, such as clean water, sanitation, and food security, are crucial for significantly reducing infection rates, as demonstrated by the experience in Western Europe. The text also warns that an "obsession with hand hygiene" can contribute to the "emergence of resistant germs."
- Assumption 3: "Entry of the market in the domain of hygiene increases the risk of infectious diseases." The passage indicates that the market's entry "Created a false sense of security" and that the "obsession with hand hygiene also brings in the persisting influence of the market on personal health, overriding or marginalising the negative impact on ecology and the emergence of resistant germs." This implies that market influence, by fostering a false sense of security and contributing to resistant germs, can indirectly elevate the risk of infectious diseases or hinder effective prevention. Thus, this assumption is valid.
- Assumption 4: "Scientific and micro-level, interventions are not sufficient to bring down the burden of infectious diseases." The passage contrasts the limitations of personal cleanliness alone with the substantial impact of "general improvements in environmental conditions and components like clean water, sanitation and food security" in reducing infection rates. This suggests that interventions focused solely on a micro-level (e.g., individual hygiene) are inadequate, necessitating broader community-based approaches. Thus, this assumption is valid.
Incorrect Options:
- Assumption 1: "People who are obsessed with personal hygiene tend to ignore the community hygiene." The passage critiques the market's role in promoting personal hygiene and the resulting "false sense of security." However, it does not assert that individuals focused on personal hygiene actively neglect community hygiene. The passage emphasizes the relative importance of different hygiene levels and market distortion, not a direct causal link of individual neglect. Therefore, this assumption is not directly supported by the text.
- Assumption 2: "Emergence of multi-drug resistant germs can be prevented by personal cleanliness." The passage explicitly states that "The obsession with hand hygiene also brings in the persisting influence of the market on personal health, overriding or marginalising the negative impact on ecology and the emergence of resistant germs." This indicates that an overemphasis on personal hygiene can contribute to, rather than prevent, the emergence of resistant germs. Therefore, this assumption is invalid.
- Assumption 5: "It is community hygiene implemented through public - health measures that is really effective in the battle against infectious diseases." While the passage strongly advocates for the effectiveness of community hygiene and public health measures (e.g., clean water, sanitation, food security) in reducing infection rates, it does not claim that *only* these measures are effective. The phrasing "really effective" implies an exclusivity that is not fully supported, as personal cleanliness is acknowledged as beneficial, though insufficient alone. Therefore, this assumption is too absolute.