Logic consistency: Statement: “All ineligible candidates do not get admission if they submit the form.” Choose the pair that fits this rule. (i) Ineligible student did not get admission. (ii) Eligible student got admission. (iii) He submitted the form. (iv) He did not submit the form.

Introduction / Context:
Interpret the statement as: (Ineligible AND Submitted) → NoAdmission.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The rule requires two conditions (ineligible + submitted) to force the outcome (no admission).

Concept / Approach:
Pick a pair that coherently includes “submitted” and “no admission” tied to ineligibility.

Step-by-Step Solution:
(iii) He submitted the form; (i) Ineligible student did not get admission → consistent with the rule.

Verification / Alternative check:
(i)(iii) (option C) also lists compatible facts but the ordered pair (submitted → no admission for ineligible) is captured by option B as a clean pairing.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They include eligibility or omit the “submitted” trigger.

Common Pitfalls:
Forgetting the rule is a conjunction in the antecedent.

Final Answer:
(iii) (i)