Introduction / Context:
The definition contrasts being stupid with behaving stupidly. We must judge two conclusions: (I) neuroticism and stupidity go hand in hand; (II) normal persons behave intelligently. The question is about what must follow from the definition alone.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Definition: 'Neurotic' = 'non-stupid person who behaves stupidly.'
- Conclusion I: Neuroticism and stupidity are concomitant.
- Conclusion II: Normal (non-neurotic) persons behave intelligently.
Concept / Approach:
- The statement separates inherent capacity (not stupid) from behavior (stupid acts), showing they need not coincide.
- Nothing is stated about the behavior of 'normal' persons.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Conclusion I contradicts the definition, which says neurotics are not stupid by nature; they only behave stupidly. Hence I does not follow.Conclusion II generalizes about 'normal persons' without support. The statement does not discuss them at all. Hence II does not follow.
Verification / Alternative check:
It is consistent with the definition that some normal persons may also occasionally behave unintelligently; therefore II is not entailed.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option accepting I or II adds assertions not warranted by the text.
Common Pitfalls:
Equating 'acting stupidly' with 'being stupid'; generalizing about groups not referenced.
Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows
Discussion & Comments