Read the passage and answer the questions given below it.
There is an odd logic in returning to the hard place where you once failed. In September 2019, the Vikram lander of Chandrayaan-2 lost contact during its final descent and crashed. Four years later, ISRO sent a new lander of the same name to the same difficult region, near the lunar south pole.
The reason is water. Near the poles the Sun stays low in the sky, and the floors of some deep craters never see sunlight. Scientists believe ice may lie frozen in that permanent dark. It could one day give future crews drinking water, oxygen and even rocket fuel.
The same low Sun that guards the ice makes landing treacherous. Shadows stretch far across the ground and hide boulders and crater edges from a descending craft’s cameras. So the mission did not aim for the pole itself. Vikram was sent to a site some distance from it, close enough to be new ground for science, flat enough to give the lander a fair chance.
What changed between the two attempts was less the destination than the mindset. The engineers behind Chandrayaan-3 were a chastened team. Instead of designing for everything going right, they asked what might go wrong and built for it. The lander got sturdier legs that could survive a harder touchdown. It was also given a far larger patch of ground to settle on, rather than one small target to hit exactly. This is a less glamorous kind of courage, and I think the more useful one.
On 23 August 2023, Vikram came down gently near the south pole. Soon after, the Pragyan rover rolled down a ramp onto the grey soil. Many people watching saw boldness. The engineers, one suspects, felt mostly relief that the dull work of planning for failure had paid off.
The writer’s attitude towards the way Chandrayaan-3 was planned can best be described as:
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 2
The correct answer is Option (2) → Quiet admiration for a careful approach built around possible failure
The writer approves of the careful way the mission was planned.
- The engineers “asked what might go wrong and built for it”. The writer calls this “a less glamorous kind of courage” and says, “I think the more useful one.” This is admiration, which means respect and approval.
- The praise is quiet. The writer even calls the planning “dull work” and does not get carried away by the landing.
Why the Other Options are Incorrect?
Option 1: Uncritical awe at a feat the writer sees as an act of pure daring — Incorrect. Contradicted: Uncritical awe means wonder without any thought or judgement. The writer says many people “saw boldness”, but praises the planning instead.
Option 3: Mild scepticism about whether so much caution was really needed — Incorrect. Contradicted: Scepticism means doubt. The writer calls the careful approach “the more useful” kind of courage.
Option 4: Detached reporting that offers no view on the engineers’ choices — Incorrect. Contradicted: Detached means not involved and without feeling. The writer gives a clear personal view with “I think”.