Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: if only conclusion II follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:The statement indicates that wearing helmets is treated as obvious common sense in certain countries; no one needs to “advise” riders. We must test which conclusion logically follows strictly from the statement, without importing external facts.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Conclusions must be necessary inferences. Linking “common sense” about helmets directly supports safety consciousness, not literacy. Literacy could correlate with many outcomes, but it is not entailed by the statement.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Test I: Literacy is never mentioned; the norm could exist regardless of formal literacy rates. Hence I does not follow.Test II: If people adopt helmets as common sense, awareness of safety risks and mitigations is implied. Hence II follows.Verification / Alternative check:Replace “common sense” with “widely internalized safety norm.” This still guarantees safety consciousness, but says nothing about reading/writing proficiency.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: unsupported leap from behavior to literacy.Either/Both: overstates what is implied.Neither: ignores the clear safety-conscious inference.Common Pitfalls:Equating civilized safety norms with literacy; they are distinct constructs.
Final Answer:Only conclusion II follows.
Discussion & Comments