if neither I nor II follows, and
Because of the phrase attraction of the fair we can conclude I. Hence I follows. Nothing can be derived about II.
State should provide then essential services. It is not clear that the service should be provide either directly or indirectly. Hence neither I nor II follows. The term only in II, too, is objectionable.
From the statement it is clear that the speaker wants improvement in the customer service. Whether it can be improved or not can't be determined from the statement. Hence I does not follow. As the speaker is accepting about the poor services, it may be inferred that be knows about it. Hence II follows.
From the clause rape rarely has witness II can be derived. As the law laid the onus of proving innocence on the accused, so I can be inferred.
The matter of the literacy or illiteracy can't be determined from the statement. Hence I does not follows. II follows from the tone of the statement.
I is an assumption.
I can 't be derived from the statement. We can't derive from this statement which factors influence the progress of a country. II follows because it is given in the statement that because of the rapid population growth rate, progress has been hindered.
It is clear that education was cheap till yet. But the reason why it was cheap for all is not given. I may be one reason but it is not exhaustive.
I can be concluded because the mileage goes down with A/C no. II can't concluded because we don't know what category Fiat falls in.
I does not follow . It is not banks that will become redundant but certain methods used in banks. II is also false: the ''wave '' has already come. Note that the sentence uses the verb in the past tense-''could''.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.