UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

The precautionary principle acknowledges that environmental systems are complex and scientific understanding is often incomplete. It states that where potential harm is serious or irreversible, waiting for perfect certainty can result in unacceptable damage. Decision-makers should therefore take reasonable, cost-effective preventive measures even when some scientific questions remain open.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because it demands complete scientific certainty before acting, which is exactly the approach the precautionary principle argues against.

Option B:
Option B is correct because it closely matches widely accepted formulations of the precautionary principle used in international environmental agreements.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect as it gives priority only to economic growth and sidelines environmental risks, contrary to the principle’s insistence on protecting the environment under uncertainty.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect since the precautionary approach responds to uncertainty by urging caution and preventive action, not by ignoring environmental concerns.

Statements A, C and D are correct and together describe the major steps and principles guiding environmental risk assessment and management. Hazard identification and exposure assessment are core elements, risk management legitimately includes broader social and economic considerations and precautionary measures are accepted when there is uncertainty about serious harm. Statements B and E are incorrect because risk assessment involves assumptions and value choices, and it is applied not only to chemicals but also to other hazards such as radiation and physical infrastructure risks. Therefore, the combination A, C and D only is the correct answer.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because it omits D, which is an important statement about the role of the precautionary approach in situations of scientific uncertainty. Without D, the answer does not fully reflect contemporary environmental risk governance.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect as it adds E, which wrongly restricts risk assessment to chemical hazards. Modern practice applies risk assessment frameworks across multiple hazard types, so including E makes the combination factually wrong.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect since it includes statement B, which claims risk assessment is entirely objective and free from value judgements. In reality, choices about endpoints, safety factors and acceptable risk levels involve normative judgments, so accepting B contradicts academic and policy discussions.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it brings together A, C and D, the three statements that align with accepted risk assessment and management practices, and excludes the two clearly false statements. It acknowledges both the technical and value-laden aspects of environmental risk governance.

Option E is incorrect as it includes B, D and E, of which only D is correct. B and E each misrepresent important aspects of risk assessment’s scope and nature, so the combination cannot be accepted.

Option F is incorrect because it groups C, D and E, again including E, which narrows risk assessment to chemicals only. Even though C and D are correct, the presence of E makes this option inconsistent with the broader view of environmental risk assessment.

Statements A, B and C are in fact correct as they describe how environmental accounting and green GDP attempt to incorporate environmental factors into economic assessment. Traditional GDP does ignore many environmental costs, and green GDP seeks to correct for these. Statement D is incorrect because environmental accounting provides important information for policy and planning. Since option C includes B, C and D and leaves out A while accepting D, it cannot be the correct answer. The correct combination must include A, B and C only.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it lists A, B and C and excludes D. It highlights the conceptual and practical significance of environmental accounting and green GDP in making development assessments more environmentally informed. Thus, it matches the intent of the question.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it omits C, which explicitly refers to green GDP adjustments, an important part of the concept. Leaving out such a central statement makes the combination incomplete.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect as it includes D, which wrongly asserts that environmental accounting is irrelevant for decision making. This contradicts the rationale behind developing such accounting systems.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it pairs A and C with D and omits B. It again accepts D, the incorrect statement, and fails to acknowledge the limitations of traditional GDP captured in B.

Statement C is wrong because correlation alone does not justify causal conclusions; without establishing time order and ruling out alternative explanations, causal claims are premature. Statements A, B, D and E are correct: positive correlation indicates a tendency for variables to move together, zero correlation suggests no linear relationship, causal claims need stronger evidence and confusing correlation with causation can misguide policy. Hence, C alone is the incorrect statement.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because it combines A, which is true, with C as wrong, implying both are incorrect. This would deny the standard interpretation of positive correlation.

Option B:
Option B is also wrong as it labels B, a correct definition of zero correlation in the linear sense, as incorrect along with C. Treating B as wrong would confuse interpretation of correlation coefficients.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect since it includes D, which correctly notes that causal claims require more than correlation. Grouping D with C misrepresents the conditions for causal inference.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it isolates C as the only flawed statement and acknowledges implicitly that the others warn appropriately about the limits of correlational evidence.