What stands in the way of the widespread and careful adoption of 'Genetic Modification (GM)' technology is an `Intellectual Property Rights' regime that seeks to create private monopolies for such technologies. If GM technology is largely corporate driven, it seeks to maximize profits and that too in the short run. That is why corporations make major investments for herbicide-tolerant and pest-resistant crops. Such properties have only a short window, as soon enough, pests and weeds will evolve to overcome such resistance. This suits the corporations. The National Farmers Commission pointed out that priority must be given in genetic modification to the incorporation of genes that can help impart resistance to drought, salinity and other stresses.
On the basis of the above passage, the following assumptions have been made:

Correct Option (1)

Assumption 1 is valid. The passage states that the National Farmers Commission emphasized the necessity of prioritizing genetic modification for incorporating genes that impart resistance to drought, salinity, and other environmental stresses. This recommendation implies that the current corporate-driven GM technology, which focuses on herbicide-tolerant and pest-resistant crops for short-term profit maximization, does not adequately address the agricultural challenges posed by natural calamities and environmental stresses. Thus, the assumption that GM technology companies do not give due consideration to these issues is a logical inference from the passage.

Incorrect Options:

Assumption 2 is invalid. The passage critiques the short-term profit-driven approach of corporate GM technology, particularly its focus on herbicide-tolerant and pest-resistant crops, which have a limited window of effectiveness. It also advocates for a reorientation of GM technology towards developing resistance to drought, salinity, and other stresses. However, the passage does not claim that GM technology itself is inherently incapable of solving long-term agricultural problems, including those arising from global warming, if applied with different priorities. It only points out the limitations of the current corporate-driven model and suggests a different focus. Therefore, inferring that GM technology will not be able to solve agricultural problems in the long run goes beyond the scope and direct implications of the provided text.