Statement: A Brahmin priest is expected to be able to recite at least one of the Vedas. Conclusions: I) Any person who can recite the Vedas is a Brahmin. II) Reciting the Vedas is a Brahmin’s obligation.
-
AIf Conclusion I follows
-
BIf Conclusion II follows
-
CIf neither Conclusion I nor II follows
-
DIf both Conclusions I and II follow
-
ENone of these
Answer
Correct Answer: If Conclusion II follows
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The statement prescribes an expectation for Brahmin priests: the ability to recite at least one Veda. We must test two conclusions—one is a converse generalization, the other restates the obligation.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Expectation: “A Brahmin priest is expected to be able to recite at least one Veda.”
- No claim equates all Veda-reciters with being Brahmins.
Concept / Approach:Conclusion II paraphrases the obligation: for Brahmin priests, reciting (at least one Veda) is expected—this follows. Conclusion I wrongly converts “Brahmin priest → can recite” into “can recite → Brahmin,” which is a logical fallacy (affirming the consequent).
Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify directionality: the rule applies to Brahmin priests, not all Veda-reciters.2) Conclude II is supported; I is an invalid converse.
Verification / Alternative check:Non-Brahmins (scholars) could recite the Vedas; thus I fails.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:Accepting I adds a universal identification never made; “neither” ignores the explicit obligation.
Common Pitfalls:Confusing an obligation for a group with an identity rule for all who meet the skill.
Final Answer:Conclusion II follows.