Classification (relations): Three pairs express a positive cause→benefit or act→consequence relation; one pair mismatches agent and outcome. Identify the odd pair.

Difficulty: Easy

Correct Answer: Judgement : Advocate

Explanation:


Introduction / Context:
Semantic classification contrasts coherent relations with mismatches. Three pairs show an action or ongoing effort plausibly leading to an outcome (though not guaranteed), while one pair mismatches the actor/agent with the outcome term. We must locate the mismatched relation.



Given Data / Assumptions:

  • Crime → Punishment (social/legal consequence).
  • Enterprise → Success (effort/initiative can result in success).
  • Exercise → Health (exercise improves health).
  • Judgement → Advocate (a judgment is delivered by a judge/court, not by an advocate).


Concept / Approach:
Check whether the right-hand term is a plausible effect/outcome of the left-hand term or is the correct agent delivering it. Identify the pair where role assignment is incorrect.



Step-by-Step Solution:

Map each left term to a consequence or agent.Crime → punishment; enterprise → success; exercise → health (plausible consequences).Judgment is pronounced by a judge/court, not an advocate; mismatch.


Verification / Alternative check:
Rephrase each as “X leads to/gives Y.” The first three read naturally. “Judgment gives advocate” or “Advocate gives judgment” is incorrect in standard legal roles.



Why Other Options Are Wrong:

They each maintain a consistent cause→effect or effort→benefit structure.


Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “advocate argues” with “judge pronounces judgment.” Actor–action roles matter.



Final Answer:
Judgement : Advocate

More Questions from Classification

Discussion & Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion