Directions : In the following questions, two columns are given containing…

Concept

In a two-column sentence-connection question, a join is acceptable ONLY when the Column-I fragment and the Column-II fragment together form ONE complete, grammatically correct and meaningful sentence: there must be a single subject and a finite (main) verb, the connector must fit syntactically, and the meaning must read coherently. A pairing fails if the result is a fragment (no main verb), a run-on (two independent clauses jammed together with no connector), or a sequence where a verb is left without its required object/complement.

Applying the test to each column piece

First, note the grammatical status of each fragment:

• "Such a sector-by-sector approach, which can be developed for other sectors" — a noun phrase carrying a relative clause, with NO main verb of its own; on its own it is a fragment that needs a finite verb to complete it.

• "They can demonstrate concrete, yet ambitious, domestic action that sets" — ends on the transitive verb "sets", which is left dangling without the object it requires; whatever follows must supply that object.

• "This approach allows India to gracefully adapt its sectoral transition plans" — already a complete independent clause (subject "This approach", verb "allows"); a continuation must attach as a subordinate/parallel element, not as a second independent clause.

• "and also to allow it to heighten its vows ..." — an additive infinitive continuation; it can only follow a piece that already supplies a parallel infinitive ("to ...") for it to be added to.

• "India must take internal measures to get on the road to net-zero emissions." — itself a full independent clause with its own subject "India" and verb "must take"; it cannot be tacked onto another clause without a connector.

• "while closing concrete actions that are less dependent on uncertain balances." — a subordinate "while"-clause that must attach to an independent clause.

Checking every offered combination

• "A–E and B–D": A + E places a verb-less noun phrase directly before the full clause "India must take ..." — two pieces with no grammatical link (a fragment followed by a separate sentence). B + D leaves "... action that sets" with no object and then adds "and also to allow ..." with nothing parallel for the addition; both joins are broken.

• "B–F": "... domestic action that sets while closing concrete actions ..." leaves the verb "sets" with no object, so the relative clause "that sets" is incomplete; the result is not a grammatical sentence.

• "A–F and B–E": A + F is still a fragment — the noun phrase never receives a main verb, so "... which can be developed for other sectors while closing ..." has no finite predicate. B + E runs "... action that sets" straight into the independent clause "India must take ...", again leaving "sets" object-less and fusing two clauses without a connector.

• "C–E": C is already a complete clause and E is a second complete clause; placing them back to back with no conjunction or punctuation link produces a run-on, not one correct sentence.

Cross-check and result

The only continuations that would genuinely complete the dangling pieces are not paired in any of the four offered options: the verb-less noun phrase "Such a sector-by-sector approach ..." would need a finite predicate, and "This approach allows India to ... adapt its plans" reads coherently only with the subordinate "while closing ..." continuation — a C–F join — which is NOT one of the offered choices. Since each of the four listed combinations yields a fragment, a run-on, or a verb stripped of its object, none of them forms a grammatically and contextually correct sentence. Hence the correct response is "None of these".