From the remark that Kirti played a very good shot on the pitch, which conclusion logically follows about Kirti or Sajit?

Introduction / Context:
This question tests basic logical reasoning and the ability to distinguish between what is actually stated and what is merely assumed. We are given a short statement where a friend tells Sajit that Kirti played a very good shot on the pitch. From this, we must decide which conclusion, if any, logically follows: that Sajit likes cricket, or that Kirti is a good player. This is a classic example of analysing everyday language without adding extra assumptions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: A friend says to Sajit, 'Kirti played a very good shot on the pitch.'
• Conclusion I: Sajit likes cricket.
• Conclusion II: Kirti is a good player.
• We treat only the given statement as true and do not add extra information about personalities or habits unless it is clearly implied.

Concept / Approach:
Logical conclusion questions require us to see if a conclusion must be true every time the statement is true. If a conclusion could be false in some possible situation while the statement remains true, then that conclusion does not logically follow. We need to examine whether liking cricket or being a good player is forced by the friend's comment, or whether those are just plausible but not necessary interpretations.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Analyse the statement carefully. The only explicit information is that Kirti played a very good shot and that this is being reported to Sajit by a friend. Step 2: Check Conclusion I – Sajit likes cricket. Does the statement say or imply that Sajit likes cricket? Not directly. The friend may simply be telling Sajit about an event, even if Sajit does not care about cricket at all. The fact that someone tells you something does not logically guarantee that you like that subject. Step 3: Since we can imagine a situation where the statement is true (the friend speaks to Sajit) and yet Sajit does not like cricket, Conclusion I is not a must. Therefore, Conclusion I does not logically follow. Step 4: Check Conclusion II – Kirti is a good player. The statement only says Kirti played a very good shot on one occasion. Even a beginner or a generally weak player might occasionally play a very good shot. One isolated performance is not sufficient to classify someone as a good player overall. Step 5: Therefore, there exists a possible situation where the statement is true (Kirti hits one good shot) and Kirti is still not generally a good player. Hence, Conclusion II also does not logically follow.
Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine Kirti is a novice who usually misses the ball but once connects and plays a beautiful shot. The friend truthfully says, 'Kirti played a very good shot.' Yet this does not make Kirti a consistently good player. Similarly, Sajit might dislike cricket but the friend still mentions the incident casually. So the statement can be true regardless of Sajit's interest in cricket.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A (Conclusion I alone follows) is wrong because liking cricket is never stated or compelled by the sentence. Option B (Conclusion II alone follows) is wrong because one good shot does not logically prove that Kirti is a generally good player. Option D (Both conclusions follow) is wrong because neither conclusion is guaranteed by the given statement.
Common Pitfalls:
Students often confuse 'plausible' with 'logically certain'. It may be reasonable to suspect that Sajit likes cricket or that Kirti is good, but the question asks what must follow. Another pitfall is reading additional information into the sentence, such as assuming the friend would only speak about cricket to a cricket lover, which is not necessarily true.
Final Answer:
Since neither Sajit's liking of cricket nor Kirti's overall skill level is guaranteed by the given remark, neither conclusion I nor conclusion II logically follows from the statement.