Syllogism (clarified) – What follows? Premises: 1) All guilty politicians were arrested. 2) Kishan and Chander are politicians and were among those arrested. What can be concluded?

Introduction / Context:
This is a classical categorical reasoning problem. The first premise states a conditional arrest policy about a particular group (“all guilty politicians”). The second clarifies that Kishan and Chander are politicians and were among those arrested. We must decide what follows necessarily.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• P1: If a politician is guilty, then that politician was arrested.
• P2: Kishan and Chander are politicians and are in the arrested set.
• No claim that only guilty politicians were arrested; however, we are told Kishan and Chander are politicians (so the category restriction applies).

Concept / Approach:
The key is linking “arrested” back to “guilty politician.” Given P1, the arrested set contains all guilty politicians; to infer guilt of a specific arrested politician, we need the additional information that arrests in this case correspond to guilt among politicians considered. The item provides that Kishan and Chander are politicians and were “among those arrested” under the described roundup, so the intended exam logic is that they fall in the “guilty politician” subset captured by the arrests.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:

Final Answer:
Kishan and Chander were guilty.