Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Only conclusion I follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
The premise makes a positive claim: growth/development occurs via stimulation and action. We must see which conclusions necessarily follow, paying attention to negations and contradictions.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
If growth requires stimulation/action, the absence of these would preclude growth—this supports Conclusion I (a form of contrapositive intuition). Conclusion II directly contradicts the premise by stating that humans do not respond to stimulation/action.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) From the dependency, infer that inertness (no stimulation/action) prevents growth ⇒ I follows.2) II is inconsistent with the stated mechanism (respond and grow), so II does not follow.
Verification / Alternative check:
Even if some growth might occur endogenously, the statement posits stimulation/action as the route; we accept that framing for the problem.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both” is contradictory; “neither” ignores the clear logical support for I.
Common Pitfalls:
Overcomplicating the reading with outside biology; keep to the logical structure given.
Final Answer:
Only conclusion I follows.
Discussion & Comments