Statements:\nI) Doing well in CSAT implies doing well in PCS.\nII) A good PCS result ensures entry into IAS or IPS.\nIII) Poor CSAT results do not get you commissioned into any of the civil services.\nWhich option follows from I–III?

Introduction / Context:
We are given two forward implications and one negative condition. The task is to check which option logically follows when the statements are taken together, using valid inference (especially chaining implications) without adding unstated converses.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: CSAT good → PCS good.
• II: PCS good → IAS or IPS (commissioned).
• III: CSAT poor → not commissioned.

Concept / Approach:
Use implication chaining and beware of illicit converse/contrapositive leaps. From I and II we can chain: CSAT good → PCS good → IAS/IPS (commissioned). Statement III separately says CSAT poor blocks commissioning.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Evaluate A: “CSAT poor → PCS poor” is the contrapositive of I’s converse and is not warranted. So A does not follow.2) Evaluate B: From I then II, CSAT good implies commissioning into IAS/IPS (a subset of civil services). Hence B follows.3) Evaluate C: “Commissioned to IAS/IPS → CSAT good” is the converse of the chain; converse is not guaranteed. So C does not follow.4) Evaluate D: “Anyone commissioned in civil services → IAS/IPS” is stronger than II (which states good PCS ensures IAS/IPS). There could be other civil services; D overgeneralizes.

Verification / Alternative check:
Truth table perspective: with I and II true, any “CSAT good” case lands in IAS/IPS; but the reverse need not hold.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
A misuses contrapositive of converse; C asserts converse; D overextends the target set.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing converse and contrapositive; assuming bi-implications from one-way implications.

Final Answer:
Good CSAT result ensures commissioning (into IAS/IPS).