Statement — A five-year BCCI ban on Mr X was quashed by an arbitrator appointed by a city court. Conclusions: I. Mr X is now free to play international cricket. II. Mr X will be inducted into the 15-member Indian team.
-
AOnly conclusion I follows
-
BOnly conclusion II follows
-
CEither I or II follows
-
DNeither I nor II follows
-
EBoth I and II follow
Answer
Correct Answer: Neither I nor II follows
Explanation
Introduction / Context:Quashing a ban removes a barrier, but selection for international cricket is a multi-step process involving selectors, fitness, form, and competition. We must not jump from legal relief to sporting outcomes.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Ban removed by arbitration.
- No statement about selection, current form, or team needs.
Concept / Approach:Conclusion I claims Mr X is “free to play international cricket,” which overstates the situation; at most, he becomes eligible for consideration. Conclusion II (guaranteed induction) is even stronger and plainly unsupported.
Step-by-Step Solution:1) Legal barrier removed ≠ automatic participation.2) Team composition depends on selectors; no link provided.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:Any option granting I or II confuses eligibility with certainty.
Common Pitfalls:Assuming legal permission instantly translates to selection and play.
Final Answer:Neither I nor II follows.