I is correct because if Kritiat is the work of Plato, it cannot be of small literary value. II does not follow because it bears no relationship with what the statement says.
I cannot be inferred because we do not know whether the decision of the jury was unanimous. It is possible that this member of the jury was had a dissenting opinion. II does not follow because it states just the contrary of what the statement says.
Since raining does not depend upon whether the day is sunny, we cannot reach any definite conclusion regarding the day being sunny. But the day must be either sunny or not sunny.
Since bank rate is also an indicative rate for the banking system, conclusion I follows. But conclusion II does not follow because a mere 25-point cut in bank rate by the RBI is not sufficient to corroborate that the move of the RBI is an indication of a strong bias towards a soft interest rate regime.
We can't conclude about the specific facility which the Indian laboratory is equipped with, on the basis of the given statement. But conclusion II follows obviously.
Conclusion I does not follow because we can't draw it from the given statement due to lack of favourable clue. But having no such plan implies conclusion II.
In does not follow because the statement tells us nothing about ethyl alcohol. II follows because the poisonous methyl alcohol makes the methylated spirit poisonous.
I follows by a simple logical combination of the two parts. But II does not follow because we can't assume that humans live on earth.
I is an assumption. Second is the direct consequence of the given statement.
I may be inferred from the aim of bringing about ''a major growth in commercial transactions.'' Ii does not follow because it goes into an irrelevant generalisation.
I is an assumption . II follow because research and training will give some help in reaching the objective.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.