Consider the following statements : 1. In the case of all cereals, pulses and oil-seeds, the procurement at Minimum Support Price (MSP) is unlimited in any State/UT of India. 2. In the case of cereals and pulses, the MSP is fixed in any State/UT at a level to which the market price will never rise. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

Explicitly states procurement policy is 'open ended' (no limit) for wheat and paddy offered by farmers within stipulated period and quality.

A student could generalize that 'open ended' procurement exists for major cereals (wheat/paddy) and then check whether that language appears for other crops/states to judge the broader claim.

Says MSP is same nationwide and 'there is no limit for procurement in terms of volume/ quantity' provided stock meets FAQ — context is food grains (wheat and rice).

Compare this explicit 'no limit' formulation for food grains with official texts for pulses/oilseeds to see if the same rule applies.

Notes MSP is declared for 25 crops but government 'procures mostly wheat and rice' and only some other crops (e.g., pulses) are procured for buffer stock—implying procurement practice varies by crop.

Use this pattern to suspect that unlimited procurement may be limited to certain cereals, so check procurement practice variations across crops/states.

Describes PM-AASHA (2018) as an umbrella to address MSP gaps for pulses and oilseeds, and that one component (PSS) involves physical procurement by central nodal agencies—suggesting specialized schemes rather than an automatic open‑ended procurement for these crops.

A student could infer that pulses/oilseeds have distinct procurement mechanisms (not necessarily open‑ended) and verify scheme rules/state implementation to test the universal 'unlimited' claim.

Describes Price Deficiency Payment Scheme (PDPS) for all MSP‑notified oilseeds where difference between MSP and market price is paid to farmer—indicating an alternative to physical procurement for oilseeds.

From this, one can deduce that for oilseeds, support may be through cash compensation rather than unlimited MSP procurement; check whether PDPS replaces or complements open procurement in states.

Says if mandi/private market prices are above MSP the government may not procure — implying MSP functions as a floor for procurement, not an automatic ceiling on market prices.

A student could compare historical mandi/market price series with announced MSPs to see whether market prices have in fact exceeded MSP and how procurement responded.

Defines MSP as the rate at which government purchases are made and notes MSP is uniform nationwide with no explicit procurement volume limit (subject to quality).

Use this rule to infer MSP is a purchase price set by policy; check procurement rules and market trading to judge whether MSP constrains market price upside.

States MSP is announced annually based on CACP recommendations and explicitly notes MSP has no legal backing or enforceable right for farmers.

From the lack of legal backing, a student could reason that MSP cannot legally cap market prices and should examine market behavior when MSP changes.

Contains the exam-style assertion (to be judged) that 'MSP is fixed in any State/UT at a level to which the market price will never rise' — showing this precise claim exists in study material as contestable.

Treat this as a hypothesis to test: compare the claim against procurement practice and market price data, and check whether textbooks endorse or refute it.