Consider the following three statements, namely S1, S2 and S3: 1. S1. Protecting the environment is an existential exigency for humans, given the impact of environmental degradation on climate change. 2. S2. Scientific consensus has not been achieved with regard to the extent of the contribution of human intervention to climate change. 3. 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? 1. S3 is a counterpoint to S1 2. S3 is unconnected to S1 and S2 3. S2 could be the reason for S3 Select the answer using the code given below.

The correct option is D - 3 only. [as per provisional answerkey] Why this is correct The question asks to evaluate the logical relationships between three distinct statements regarding environmental protection, scientific consensus, and activism. Relationship 3 (S2 could be the reason for S3): This is logically plausible. S2 states that there is no scientific consensus on the extent of human contribution to climate change. This lack of definitive consensus or "gray area" provides the vacuum in which "climate alarmism" or "extremist points of view" (mentioned in S3) can flourish. When science is not perceived as settled, both alarmists and deniers use the ambiguity to push their respective agendas. Therefore, S2 can indeed be a contributing factor or "reason" for the phenomenon described in S3. Why the other options are incorrect - Relationship 1 - S3 is a counterpoint to S1: S1 argues that protecting the environment is an existential necessity. S3 describes the nature of environmental activism and how it is perceived by deniers. S3 does not contradict or provide a "counterpoint" to the necessity of environmental protection; rather, it comments on the methods and perceptions of activism. A counterpoint to S1 would be a statement claiming environmental protection is unnecessary. - Relationship 2 - S3 is unconnected to S1 and S2: This is incorrect because all three statements revolve around the central theme of climate change and environmental discourse. S3 specifically mentions "climate change deniers," who would use the lack of consensus mentioned in S2 to justify their stance, and "climate alarmism," which is an extreme reaction to the existential threat mentioned in S1. They are contextually and logically linked. Key Concept This question tests the ability to identify logical causality and thematic consistency between statements, specifically distinguishing between a statement's core argument and the external reactions to that argument.

IAS 2026 — CSAT Reasoning

2026mcqmedium

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.

Official previous-year question

Verified 2 Aug 2026.

Options

A2 and 3 only
B1, 2 and 3
C1 and 2 only
D3 only

Did you get this right?

Solution

The correct option is D - 3 only.

[as per provisional answerkey]

Why this is correct

The question asks to evaluate the logical relationships between three distinct statements regarding environmental protection, scientific consensus, and activism.

Relationship 3 (S2 could be the reason for S3): This is logically plausible. S2 states that there is no scientific consensus on the extent of human contribution to climate change. This lack of definitive consensus or "gray area" provides the vacuum in which "climate alarmism" or "extremist points of view" (mentioned in S3) can flourish. When science is not perceived as settled, both alarmists and deniers use the ambiguity to push their respective agendas. Therefore, S2 can indeed be a contributing factor or "reason" for the phenomenon described in S3.

Why the other options are incorrect

Relationship 1 - S3 is a counterpoint to S1: S1 argues that protecting the environment is an existential necessity. S3 describes the nature of environmental activism and how it is perceived by deniers. S3 does not contradict or provide a "counterpoint" to the necessity of environmental protection; rather, it comments on the methods and perceptions of activism. A counterpoint to S1 would be a statement claiming environmental protection is unnecessary.
Relationship 2 - S3 is unconnected to S1 and S2: This is incorrect because all three statements revolve around the central theme of climate change and environmental discourse. S3 specifically mentions "climate change deniers," who would use the lack of consensus mentioned in S2 to justify their stance, and "climate alarmism," which is an extreme reaction to the existential threat mentioned in S1. They are contextually and logically linked.

Key Concept

This question tests the ability to identify logical causality and thematic consistency between statements, specifically distinguishing between a statement's core argument and the external reactions to that argument.

Your note

IAS Reasoning in other years

Reasoning 2025 Reasoning 2024 Reasoning 2023 Reasoning 2022 Reasoning 2021 Reasoning 2020 Reasoning 2019 Reasoning 2018 Reasoning 2017 Reasoning 2016 Reasoning 2015 Reasoning 2014

More IAS Reasoning questions

P, Q, R, S and T are ranked 1 to 5 (not necessarily in that order). The rank of P is 4, the rank of Q is not 5, the rank of R is 1, the rank of S is not 2, the rank of T is not 3. Then which of the following is/are correct? 1. If the rank of S is 3, then that of T is 2. 2. If the rank of Q is 3, then that of T is 5. Select the answer using the code given below.

2026easy

There are four statements X, Y, Z and W. Their relations are as follows: If X is incorrect, then so is Z; if Y is incorrect, then W is correct; if W is correct, then X is incorrect. Which of the following is/are correct? 1. If X is correct, then so is Y. 2. If Z is correct, then it is not necessary that Y is correct. Select the answer using the code given below.

2026medium

A cut on a solid object divides the object into two parts where the new surfaces thus produced are plane. On the other hand, one single cut can be used to cut more than one object at a time. In an experiment, the total number of pieces produced by applying n cuts is denoted by \(x_n\). The experiment is performed on a solid cube where pieces remain unmoved after each cut. In this experiment, if after the third cut, the pieces are identical, then which of the following is not a possible value for \(x_4\)?

2026hard

Two identical straight rods are painted in five distinct colours so that each of them gets divided into five equal parts along the length. In one of them, the portions are marked P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5 (not necessarily in that order) whereas in the other, they are marked Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5 (not necessarily in that order). When the rods are kept parallel to each other side by side, P1 and Q3 match, P4 matches Q1 or Q2, and Q4 matches P3 or P5. If Q3 and Q5 are adjacent, which of the following is/are possible? 1. Q3 is marked at the middle portion of the straight rod. 2. P2 is marked at one of the extreme portions of the straight rod. Select the answer using the code given below.

2026medium

Seven cubes are identical in shape. Out of these, the weight of each of the six cubes is equal and the weight of the remaining cube is less than the weight of any other cube. A balance is used to identify the lightest cube. What is the minimum number of attempts required to distinguish the odd cube with certainty?

2026medium

View all Reasoning questions

Keep practicing Reasoning

Work through every IAS Reasoning PYQ, year by year.

Browse all CSAT topics

The correct option is D - 3 only.

[as per provisional answerkey]

Why this is correct

Why the other options are incorrect

Relationship 1 - S3 is a counterpoint to S1: S1 argues that protecting the environment is an existential necessity. S3 describes the nature of environmental activism and how it is perceived by deniers. S3 does not contradict or provide a "counterpoint" to the necessity of environmental protection; rather, it comments on the methods and perceptions of activism. A counterpoint to S1 would be a statement claiming environmental protection is unnecessary.
Relationship 2 - S3 is unconnected to S1 and S2: This is incorrect because all three statements revolve around the central theme of climate change and environmental discourse. S3 specifically mentions "climate change deniers," who would use the lack of consensus mentioned in S2 to justify their stance, and "climate alarmism," which is an extreme reaction to the existential threat mentioned in S1. They are contextually and logically linked.

IAS 2026 — CSAT Reasoning

Options

Did you get this right?

Solution

Why this is correct

Why the other options are incorrect

Key Concept

Your note

IAS Reasoning in other years

More IAS Reasoning questions

Other CSAT topics for IAS

Comprehension

Maths

Keep practicing Reasoning

IAS 2026 — CSAT Reasoning

Options

Did you get this right?

Solution

Why this is correct

Why the other options are incorrect

Key Concept

Your note

IAS Reasoning in other years

More IAS Reasoning questions

Other CSAT topics for IAS

Comprehension

Maths

Keep practicing Reasoning