Statement — Cases of bride-burning for dowry are not uncommon. Question — Which conclusion(s) necessarily follow strictly from this statement?
-
Aif only Conclusion I follows
-
Bif only Conclusion II follows
-
Cif either Conclusion I or II follows
-
Dif both Conclusions I and II follow
-
Eif neither Conclusion I nor Conclusion II follows
Answer
Correct Answer: if neither Conclusion I nor Conclusion II follows
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The stem asserts frequency (“not uncommon”) of a harmful practice. Two conclusions try to explain why the practice persists: (I) despite an anti-dowry law; (II) punishments are not harsh enough. We must test necessity, not plausibility.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Only the prevalence fact is given.
- No mention of any specific law or the severity/effectiveness of penalties.
Concept / Approach:Necessary inference must come directly from the stem. Explanations invoking legal context or punishment severity introduce new information that could be true or false independently of the prevalence statement.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Conclusion I (“In spite of anti-dowry law, the practice continues”): The stem never mentions laws; introducing “anti-dowry law” is extra information. Not a necessary consequence.Conclusion II (“Punishment is not hard enough”): This is a causal diagnosis, not entailed by the prevalence statement. Also not necessary.Verification / Alternative check:It is possible (consistent with the stem) that no law exists, or that law exists but the persistence is due to poor enforcement, cultural factors, fear of reporting, etc. These alternative worlds prove that neither I nor II is forced by the stem.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option selecting I or II (alone, either, or both) treats speculative causes as proven. Only “neither” respects the logical boundary.Common Pitfalls:Confusing common knowledge or moral intuition with strict logical entailment.
Final Answer:if neither Conclusion I nor Conclusion II follows