A male tiger was removed from Pench Tiger Reserve and was relocated in Panna National Park. Later, this tiger trekked toward his home 250 miles away. The trek of this solitary tiger highlights a crisis. Many wildlife reserves exist as islands of fragile habitat in a vast sea of humanity, yet tigers can range over a hundred miles, seeking prey, mates and territory. Nearly a third of India’s tigers live outside tiger reserves, a situation that is dangerous for both human and animal. Prey and tigers can only disperse if there are recognized corridors of land between protected areas to allow unmolested passage.

With reference to the above passage, the following assumptions have been made:
1. The strategy of conservation of wildlife by relocating them from one protected area to another is not often successful.
2. India does not have suitable legislation to save the tigers, and its conservation efforts have failed which forced the tigers to live outside protected areas.

Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

The correct option is 1 only.

Explanation:
Let us analyze each of the assumptions based strictly on the information provided in the passage:

Analysis of Assumption 1:
The passage describes a case where a male tiger relocated from Pench Tiger Reserve to Panna National Park trekked 250 miles back toward his original home. This attempt of the solitary tiger to return to his original habitat, despite being relocated to another protected area, highlights that simple relocation strategies without taking into account the ranging behavior and territorial instincts of tigers may not be successful. Therefore, the assumption that relocating wildlife from one protected area to another is not often successful is a valid assumption drawn from the text.

Analysis of Assumption 2:
The passage states that nearly a third of India's tigers live outside reserves and that this situation is dangerous. However, the text does not mention or imply anything about India's legislation (or lack thereof) to save tigers. Furthermore, it does not claim that the conservation efforts as a whole have failed. The reason tigers live outside reserves is attributed to their need to range over large distances seeking prey, mates, and territory, combined with the lack of recognized corridors between fragmented habitats, rather than a failure of legislation. Thus, Assumption 2 is invalid.

Hence, only Assumption 1 is valid.