The provided passage introduces a new cotton technology called Bollgard-II, which is noted for its herbicide tolerant traits. A significant detail highlighted is that, despite its advantages, the commercial use of this technology is not legal in India. However, reports indicate a contradiction: farmers have purchased this Bt cotton, paying an average of Rs. 200 more than the control price, and have planted it across 15% of the cotton growing area during the 2017 Kharif season. The question asks what can be inferred from this situation.

Cotton Technology: Understanding the Core Conflict

To infer means to draw a conclusion based on evidence and reasoning from the given text. The passage presents a clear conflict:

• The Bollgard-II cotton technology is available and seemingly desired by farmers.
• It offers specific benefits, namely herbicide tolerance, which can be valuable for crop management.
• Crucially, its commercial use is explicitly stated as illegal in India.
• However, despite this legal prohibition, farmers are actively engaged in its purchase and cultivation on a notable scale (15% of the cotton growing area).
• They are even willing to pay a premium price for this access.

This discrepancy between legal status and farmer action is the key to identifying the correct inference.

Farmer Behavior: Analyzing the Options

Let's evaluate each option to determine which statement can be most accurately inferred from the details provided about Bollgard-II and the farmers' actions:

Farmers' Access to New Technology

• Option 1: Farmers want to access the new technology if India benefits from it

  The passage does not provide any information about farmers' motivation being tied to India's national benefit. Their actions are described as purchasing and planting the technology despite its illegal status. We cannot infer their consideration of broader national benefits from the given text.

• Option 2: Farmers want to access the new technology even if it is not legal

  This statement is strongly supported by the passage. The text explicitly states that the commercial use of Bollgard-II is "not legal in India." Immediately following this, it reports that farmers "purchased" and "planted" this cotton extensively. This demonstrates a clear desire on the part of farmers to gain access to and utilize the new technology, irrespective of its legal standing. Their actions directly contradict the legal prohibition, showing their intent to access it "even if it is not legal."

• Option 3: Farmers want to access the new technology for experimental purposes

  The passage indicates that Bollgard-II has "developed into a thriving business" and was "planted in 15% of the cotton growing area." This scale and commercial context suggest widespread adoption for regular cultivation, not for limited experimental purposes. Experimental use would typically involve smaller, controlled trials, not a significant portion of the total cultivation area as a "thriving business."

• Option 4: Farmers want to access the new technology by paying high price

  While the passage mentions that farmers paid "Rs. 200 more," this detail confirms their willingness to incur additional cost to obtain the technology. However, the most central and striking inference, given the preceding context of illegality, is that they are willing to access the technology *despite it being illegal*. The high price is a consequence or a reinforcing detail of their strong desire to access it, but the primary inference from the juxtaposition of "not legal" and "purchased/planted" is about their readiness to bypass legal barriers.

Bollgard-II Inference: Conclusion

The most direct and accurate inference from the given passage is that farmers desire to access and utilize the new Bollgard-II cotton technology, even to the extent of doing so when its commercial use is not legally permitted in India. Their actions demonstrate a clear preference for the technology despite the existing legal prohibitions.