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'.
Both I and II are invalid because they lack proper connectivity with the given statement.
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
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.
The statement says that greatest need in India is not for sophisticated gadgets but for programmes but this does not mean that there is an adequate number of sophisticated cannot be concluded that emphasis is being laid on procuring sophisticated gadgets. Hence, none of the conclusions follows.
According to the statement, good wranglers are wise-men But it doesn't mean that all wise-men are good wranglers. So, neither I not II follows.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.