Direction for the following 4 (four) items: Read the following four passages and answer the items (51-54) that follow. Your answers to these items should be based on the passages only.

In the immediate future, we will see the increasing commodification of many new technologies – artificial intelligence and robotics, 3D manufacturing, custom made biological and pharmaceutical products, lethal autonomous weapons and driverless cars. This will pose conundrums. The moral question of how a driverless car will decide between hitting a jaywalker and swerving and damaging the car has often been debated. The answer is both simple– save the human life – and complex. At which angle should the car swerve – just enough to save jaywalker or more than enough? If the driverless car is in Dublin, who would take the decision? The Irish Government, or the car’s original code writer in California, or a software programmer in Hyderabad to whom maintenance is outsourced? If different national jurisdictions have different fine print on prioritising a human life, how will it affect insurance and investment decisions, including transnational ones?

Which of the following statements best reflects the rational, plausible and practical implications that can be derived from the passage given above?

1. Too much globalization is not in the best interests of any country.

2. Modern technologies are increasingly blurring the economic borders.

3. Innovation and capital have impinged on the domain of the state.

4. Public policy of every country should focus on developing its own supply chains.

5. Geopolitics will have to reconcile to many ambiguities and uncertainties.

Select the correct answer using the code given below:

The correct answer is 2, 3 and 5 only.

Step-by-Step Explanation and Analysis:

The passage discusses the rapid commodification of modern technologies (such as AI, 3D manufacturing, autonomous weapons, and driverless cars) and the complex ethical, regulatory, jurisdictional, investment, and geopolitical challenges they bring across international borders.

Let us evaluate each of the given statements based strictly on the logical flow of the passage:

Analysis of Statement 1: "Too much globalization is not in the best interests of any country."
This is an extreme and absolute generalization. The passage highlights cross-border challenges resulting from technology (such as software programmed in Hyderabad for a car in Dublin with code written in California), but it does not make a broad normative claim rejecting globalization altogether. Thus, statement 1 is incorrect/implausible as a direct implication.

Analysis of Statement 2: "Modern technologies are increasingly blurring the economic borders."
This statement is valid. The passage specifically mentions transnational investment, outsourcing of software maintenance (Hyderabad), product creation (California), and operation in another country (Dublin), clearly showing how technology transcends local economic boundaries.

Analysis of Statement 3: "Innovation and capital have impinged on the domain of the state."
This statement is valid. The text asks who makes decision rules and moral judgments—the local government, foreign code writers, or offshore software maintainers—and how this impacts legal jurisdictions, regulatory fine print, and investment. This indicates that private technological innovation and capital flows are directly challenging and overlapping with traditional state sovereignty and policymaking.

Analysis of Statement 4: "Public policy of every country should focus on developing its own supply chains."
The passage does not discuss domestic supply chain self-reliance or advocate for specific national supply chain policies. Therefore, statement 4 cannot be derived from the text.

Analysis of Statement 5: "Geopolitics will have to reconcile to many ambiguities and uncertainties."
This statement is valid. The passage explicitly outlines several moral, legal, and operational dilemmas ("pose conundrums", "different national jurisdictions", "how will it affect insurance and investment decisions"), underscoring that global governance and geopolitics must deal with growing legal and ethical uncertainties brought by new technologies.

Conclusion:
Statements 2, 3, and 5 are rational, plausible, and practical implications derived from the passage, making 2, 3 and 5 only the correct option.