1). In my view, a priority sector should be an area of market failure. 2).…

In a sentence-rearrangement (para-jumble) passage, the correct order begins with the one sentence that introduces the topic without leaning on a pronoun, an example, or a reference to anything not yet stated, and then follows the logical and referential links between the remaining sentences: an example follows the general claim it illustrates, a definition follows the term it defines, and a personal opinion follows the neutral context that prompts it.

1. Sentence 4 is the only sentence that introduces "priority sectors" without depending on anything earlier, so it must open the passage.

2. Sentence 2 follows 4 directly, because it lists concrete examples (agriculture, small scale industries, housing, exports) of the very "priority sectors" sentence 4 just named.

3. Sentence 5 follows 2, turning that just-established list into a criticism: there is no clearly articulated logic for which sectors get the "priority" tag.

4. Sentence 1 follows 5: having just read that no clear logic is articulated, the author offers his own criterion ("In my view...").

5. Sentence 3 follows 1, defining the very term ("market failure") that sentence 1 just introduced.

6. Sentence 6 closes the chain, generalising from that specific definition ("Markets fail for a variety of reasons").

Reading 4-2-5-1-3-6 end to end produces one continuous argument: what priority sectors are, examples of them, a criticism of how they are chosen, the author's own criterion, the definition of that criterion's key term, and a closing generalisation - no sentence needs anything from later in the sequence.

This gives the sequence 425136, which matches the option carrying that exact order.