Below are two statements (A) and (B) in the context of leather workers in…

A historical claim about an economic opportunity (like wartime demand) must be checked against the social structures that governed who could actually access it. In colonial India, caste rigidly determined occupational access: a trade regarded as ritually polluting was confined to specific hereditary communities, and this restriction did not loosen just because outside demand for that trade's output suddenly rose.

Applying this to the two statements: the First World War did create a huge surge in demand for army footwear, so statement (A) holds. But the claim in statement (B) — that poor people from ordinary castes saw this as an opportunity and were ready to supply shoes — does not hold. Leather work was treated as a stigmatised, "polluting" occupation and remained confined to the traditional leather-working communities throughout the war; caste prejudice kept people outside those communities from entering the trade. It was these existing leather workers, not new entrants from ordinary castes, who supplied the army and could charge high prices for their goods, earning impressive profits from the surge in demand.

1. Check "both true": fails, because (B) wrongly assumes caste barriers did not restrict who could supply the army.

2. Check "both false": fails, because the wartime demand for army shoes described in (A) is a well-documented fact.

3. Check "(A) false, (B) true": fails on both counts — the demand was real, and access remained caste-restricted.

4. Only "(A) true, (B) false" is consistent with the historical record: a real wartime demand, met exclusively by the traditional leather-working communities.

This matches the official CTET July 2024 Paper-II answer key for this question.