Both I and II are invalid as statement itself is vague and ambiguous which is unable to make proper connectivity with the given conclusion.
Conclusion I is valid conclusion as the use of word 'could' implies a difficulty in obtaining reservation but Conclusion II is invalid as it is not certain.
Both the conclusion follows. The waiver is incorporated because some of the students for MA will not have previous experience and some of the students will have previous experience of social work.
It is clear from the statement that product of company 'X' has good quality and is available at a reasonable price. Hence, both the conclusions follow
Both the conclusion follow from the statement. Conclusion I is the direct result of the statement. Conclusion II follows because in the given statement, there is a need to replace the present system with a new one.
none follow as the given statement merely says that camels are very useful for desert. it does not state whether they are chip or available in large number
Both I and II are invalid because they lack proper connectivity with the given statement.
Conclusion I is valid because if unemployment is the main reason behind poverty, then creating employment opportuities is the need of the hour. Conclusion II is invalid because of the presence of word 'all'.
Conclusion I is totally unrelated to the statement and Conclusion II is contrary to the statement. Hence, none of the conclusions follows.
Conclusion I is invalid conclusion as relation between Hari and shyam is not given. Conclusion II is valid because if Hari is the son of Suresh, then Suresh will definitely be the father of Hari.
Conclusions I and II convey almost the same meaning that principles related to Ethics and Morality seem to be good but are not practicable in real life. Hence, both the conclusions follow.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.