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. Second is the direct consequence of the given statement.
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.
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 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.
I is an assumption . II follow because research and training will give some help in reaching the objective.
You may be tempted to conclude ''Either I or II follows'' . But read carefully. An advocate of speedy justice, however, would have given such instruction for all cases in general. But the chairman is being specific. Hence only II follows.
I follows because additional amount will lead to road infrastructure, which in turn will lead to industrial growth. II does not follow. Will this additional amount go to NHDP? Or will it be used for alternative road projects? If the statement had answered the formed question s 'Yes', than we could have concluded II with certainty.
Exemption in excise duty will have negative effect on national exchequer. Hence I follows. II is an inference to the contrary.
Since 'fielding' is said to be indispensable, hence conclusion I follows. Besides good fielding, their may be some other factors also which might be needed to win the match.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.