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.
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 is an assumption . II follow because research and training will give some help in reaching the objective.
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.
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.
I is true. Because change in quality and method of printing and marking it reader-friendly at reduced price may make the company to compete the market norms.
I is obvious, but II is uncertain.
I does not follow because '' senior players'' is no category in the statement. II does not follow because ''more'' does not compare the two categories of players. The statement merely implies that first-class players should get more than what they do at present.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.