Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Neither I nor II follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
The statement frames a conditional national goal (“if India aims … over the next decade”) and specifies a prerequisite (produce a pool of professionals). We must test if either proposed conclusion is logically forced.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I (“already on the verge”) misreads a forward-looking aspiration as present attainment. Conclusion II asserts present adequacy and proposes retention incentives; the statement neither claims adequacy nor mentions migration. Therefore both are unsupported.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Parse the conditional: future aim → prerequisite action now.2) Identify what is not claimed: no current “verge” status; no adequacy count.3) Reject conclusions that add unstated facts.
Verification / Alternative check:
Even if India had abundant professionals, the statement would still call for producing a pool; adequacy is not the point being made.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Only II/Either/Both: import claims absent from the premise.
Common Pitfalls:
Turning a policy recommendation into an assertion of present reality.
Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows.
Discussion & Comments