Directions: Choose the pair(s) of words that need to be interchanged to make…

Concept

A word-pair interchange is correct only when swapping the two marked words makes every resulting phrase both grammatically sound and idiomatically standard — for example, forming a real government portfolio title, or preserving a natural cause-and-effect relationship between clauses. Being grammatically parseable is not enough on its own: a sentence can read as a valid English sentence and still pair a word with the wrong neighbouring word for standard, idiomatic usage — that mismatch is exactly what the correct interchange is meant to fix, so 'no interchange required' is right only when no such mismatch exists anywhere in the sentence.

Application

The sentence carries four marked words: environmental, legislation, industries, and health. Read as given, it ends in 'boost health protection' and opens with 'the environmental minister' — neither is the standard, natural pairing used for this portfolio and this closing phrase. Interchanging environmental and health resolves both points at once: the sentence becomes 'The health minister had told the Rajya Sabha that the new legislation will give a fresh impetus to industries and also boost environmental protection.' 'The health minister' is the standard designation for that portfolio, and 'environmental protection' is the standard fixed phrase for the closing clause — every other word keeps its original, already-correct role.

Cross-check

Checking the sentence's internal logic confirms the same reading: legislation is what gives impetus to industries (cause before effect), so 'the new legislation will give a fresh impetus to industries' must stay exactly as written — nothing about legislation and industries needs to change. Only the portfolio word and the closing-phrase word were mismatched, and swapping exactly that one pair — environmental and health — is what fixes the sentence.

• Swapping legislation and industries alone reverses that cause-and-effect relationship, producing 'the new industries will give a fresh impetus to legislation' — the wrong direction.

• Swapping environmental and industries leaves 'a fresh impetus to environmental' (an adjective with no noun) and 'the industries minister' (not a recognised designation).

• Combining the environmental–health swap with the legislation–industries swap reintroduces the same reversed cause-and-effect problem noted above, even though the portfolio and closing phrase are now fixed.

• Leaving the sentence unchanged keeps both the non-standard portfolio pairing and the non-standard closing phrase, so 'no interchange' is not an option.