Critical Reasoning — Conclusions Statement: A neurotic is a non-stupid person who behaves stupidly. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Question

Solve this multiple-choice question and choose the correct option.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The definition contrasts being stupid with behaving stupidly. We must judge two conclusions: (I) neuroticism and stupidity go hand in hand; (II) normal persons behave intelligently. The question is about what must follow from the definition alone. Given Data / Assumptions: Definition: 'Neurotic' = 'non-stupid person who behaves stupidly.' Conclusion I: Neuroticism and stupidity are concomitant. Conclusion II: Normal (non-neurotic) persons behave intelligently. Concept / Approach: The statement separates inherent capacity (not stupid) from behavior (stupid acts), showing they need not coincide. Nothing is stated about the behavior of 'normal' persons. Step-by-Step Solution: Conclusion I contradicts the definition, which says neurotics are not stupid by nature; they only behave stupidly. Hence I does not follow.Conclusion II generalizes about 'normal persons' without support. The statement does not discuss them at all. Hence II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: It is consistent with the definition that some normal persons may also occasionally behave unintelligently; therefore II is not entailed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option accepting I or II adds assertions not warranted by the text. Common Pitfalls: Equating 'acting stupidly' with 'being stupid'; generalizing about groups not referenced. Final Answer: Neither I nor II follows

Critical Reasoning — Conclusions Statement: A neurotic is a non-stupid person who behaves stupidly. Which conclusion(s) follow?

More Questions from Statement and Conclusion

Discussion & Comments