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.

Reasoning : Logical Reasoning & Analytical Ability

Q 10 / 325

UPSC CSE Prelims 2026

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.

EXPLANATION

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.