Curioustab Logo Curioustab
Home » Verbal Reasoning » Statement and Conclusion

Statement:\n“All guilty politicians were arrested. Kishan and Chander were among those arrested.”\n\nFrom the statement above, which inference is logically certain?

Difficulty: Medium

Correct Answer: No definite inference about whether Kishan and Chander were politicians or guilty can be drawn.

Explanation:


Introduction / Context:
The statement provides two pieces of information: (1) every guilty politician is in the arrested set, and (2) Kishan and Chander are in the arrested set. We are asked to identify what must logically follow—i.e., what is true in every model that satisfies the statement—without adding external assumptions.


Given Data / Assumptions:

  • All guilty politicians ⊆ Arrested.
  • Kishan ∈ Arrested; Chander ∈ Arrested.
  • No information about whether the arrested set contains non-politicians or innocents.


Concept / Approach:
From “All guilty politicians were arrested,” we know a sufficient condition for arrest (being a guilty politician). The converse is not given: being arrested does not imply being a guilty politician (others may also have been arrested). Therefore, membership in the arrested set does not, by itself, classify an individual as a politician or as guilty.


Step-by-Step Solution:

1) Check (a): “Kishan and Chander were guilty politicians.” This could be true, but it is not necessary; they may have been arrested for other reasons (e.g., preventive detention, being suspects, or non-political offences).2) Check (b): “All arrested people were politicians.” The statement does not say that; it only constrains one subgroup (guilty politicians). So (b) is not necessary.3) Check (d): “Kishan and Chander were not politicians.” Also not implied; they could be politicians or not—we are not told.4) Check (c): “Some arrested might not be politicians.” This is possible, but not guaranteed; the arrested set could, in an extreme model, consist exactly of all and only guilty politicians.5) Therefore, the only logically safe, necessary inference is that no definite classification of Kishan and Chander (politician/guilty) can be made from the given statement alone.


Verification / Alternative check:
Construct two models consistent with the premise: Model 1—Only guilty politicians were arrested (then Kishan and Chander are guilty politicians). Model 2—Guilty politicians and some others were arrested (then Kishan and Chander could be non-politicians). As both models satisfy the premise but yield different statuses for Kishan and Chander, no definite conclusion about their guilt or political status can be drawn.


Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• (a), (b), (d) assert specifics not guaranteed.• (c) claims existence beyond necessity; it is possible but not certain.


Common Pitfalls:
Assuming the converse of a universal statement; confusing sufficiency with necessity.


Final Answer:
No definite inference about whether Kishan and Chander were politicians or guilty can be drawn.

← Previous Question Next Question→

More Questions from Statement and Conclusion

Discussion & Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion