The correct option is (a) - 3 and 4 only.
[as per provisional answerkey]Why this is correct
Based on the passage, we can evaluate the validity of each conclusion as follows:
- Conclusion 3: The passage explicitly states that in the fine-tuning phase, participants try to extract remaining benefits from an "increasingly exhausted technology," resulting in leaders and followers having "similar per capita incomes." This matches the conclusion perfectly.
- Conclusion 4: The passage provides a chronological timeline: scavenging (3 MYA), hunting (1 MYA), farming (12,000 years ago), and industrial technology (200+ years ago). Therefore, industrial technology did follow scavenging, scavenging preceded hunting, and hunting was followed by farming. This is factually consistent with the text.
Why the other options are incorrect
- Conclusion 1 - Economic progress is slow for followers: The passage states that during the breakaway phase, the per capita income for technology followers is "unchanged." "Unchanged" implies zero growth or stagnation, not "slow progress." Therefore, this conclusion misinterprets the degree of stagnation.
- Conclusion 2 - Leaders stagnate in the catch-up phase: The passage says followers close the gap by adopting new technology. It does not state that leaders stagnate; rather, the followers accelerate. The gap closes because the followers catch up, not necessarily because the leaders stop progressing.
- Option (b), (c), and (d): These options are incorrect because they include Conclusion 1 or Conclusion 2, both of which contain logical inaccuracies or assumptions not supported by the specific language of the passage.
Key Concept
This question tests the ability to distinguish between "stagnation/unchanged" versus "slow growth" and requires precise chronological mapping of data provided in the text.