Sentences of a paragraph are given below in jumbled order. Arrange the…

Concept: In a sentence-rearrangement (para-jumble) question the order is fixed by discourse markers, not by topic alone. An opening sentence must introduce the subject in general terms without presupposing anything said earlier. A concessive marker (despite, although, in spite of) must be preceded by the positive claim it concedes against; an elaborating sentence must be preceded by the general statement it makes concrete; and a conclusive marker (hence, therefore, thus) must be preceded by the reason it draws its conclusion from. A marker placed without the material it points back to breaks the chain.

Application: Applying this to the four given sentences:

1. Q — “Artificial Intelligence is transforming industries by automating processes and enhancing decision-making” — states the subject in general terms and presupposes nothing earlier, so Q opens the paragraph.

2. R — “Despite its potential, AI is not immune to errors and ethical challenges” — carries the concessive marker “Despite”, which needs a preceding claim about AI's potential to concede against, and Q's account of AI transforming industries supplies exactly that, so R follows Q. (The pronoun “its” inside R is resolved by “AI” later in the same sentence, so it is the concessive marker, not the pronoun, that creates the dependency on Q.)

3. P — “Without regular maintenance and monitoring, even advanced AI systems can yield biased or flawed outcomes” — makes R's general mention of errors concrete by naming the condition under which they arise, so P elaborates R and follows it.

4. S — “Hence, responsible deployment and transparency in AI algorithms are crucial” — carries the conclusive marker “Hence”, which needs a preceding reason, and P's flawed-outcome risk is that reason, so S closes the paragraph.

Cross-check: Read in sequence, Q, R, P, S moves from a general benefit, to a concession, to the concrete cause of the conceded problem, to the conclusion drawn from that cause. Checking the other arrangements against the same three marker rules:

• P, Q, R, S — the concession and the conclusion do each find material before them here, but the paragraph opens on the conditional caution “Without regular maintenance and monitoring…”, which qualifies a subject that has not yet been introduced, and that caution is separated from the mention of errors it is meant to make concrete.

• R, Q, S, P — the concession “Despite its potential” stands first, with no preceding claim about AI's potential to concede against, and “Hence” draws its conclusion before the flawed-outcome risk it rests on has been stated.

• Q, P, R, S — the specific caution about biased outcomes precedes the general statement that AI is not immune to errors, reversing the general-to-specific direction of elaboration, so “Despite its potential” ends up conceding against that caution rather than against the account of AI's potential.

Only Q, R, P, S introduces the subject first and then gives the concession, the elaboration and the conclusion each the material it depends on, confirming the order QRPS.