I is an assumption that has led the speaker to show his concern in the statement. II can also not be concluded. We don't know about the benefits/losses of alternative modes.
I can be concluded. It is an important reason of the insecurity of food in spite of large stocks and production. II can't be concluded.
New shoes can't reveal one's citizenship. But either of the conclusions must be true .
II does not follow because 'less than thirty' does not imply that the persons will be more than thirty. He/she may be of thirty years of age.
We can infer from the statement that there is no such book which focuses on cross-border terrorism in India during last two decades. But conclusion I does not consist of the words 'the last two decades'. Hence conclusion I does not follow. Again, the statement is silent on cross-border terrorism before the last two decades. Hence, II does not follow.
I does not follow because of the use of the word 'only'. II does not follow because there is no such clues regarding the comparison between the two markets, in the statement.
Temple and Church are place of worship. It does not imply that hindus and christians use the same place for worship.
Therefore, neither I nor II follows.
Both I and II follows
James gets paid for his work.
It is not necessary that A is a clerk though he is poor.
The use of term 'All' in the conclusion I makes it invalid. We know that, definite conclusion cannot be drawn from general statement.
Ministers arrived at the public function in their cars. Thus. ministers have cars and they attended public function. Therefore, only II and III are implicit in the statement.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.