The sentence ''the economy has been dragged down by agriculture'' does not necessarily imply that agriculture showed negative growth . Possibility of nominal growth can't be ruled out. Hence, I does not follow.
I follows. That is why it is a jolt to the water industry. The presence of pesticides undermines the very purpose of ''safe drinking''. II does not follow because the statement talks only about ''bottled water'', not drinking water in general.
The statement does not make clear who is more dishonest between X and Y. But, either conclusion I or II must follow.
I follows; that is why the government is taking action against erring autorickshaws. II is obvious.
A zoo is a place where wild animals are Kept.
Fall of demand of gold is due to rising prices. Hence, I can be concluded.II can't be concluded from the given statement.
We can't co-relate the given conclusions with the statement given. Hence, neither I nor II follows.
Quashing of ban will result in conclusion I. Hence I follows. But II does not follow from the statement.
I Follows form the tone of the statement. But II does not follow from the statement. See the word 'unnecessarily' used in the statement.
Both I and II are beyond the scope of the statement.
I does not follow because it is a subjective perception.II follows because while the oppostion walked out, even the allies have given vent to their dissatisfaction.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.