Introduction / Context:
A directive is proposed regarding newspaper reading during office hours. We must test two conclusions: (I) reading newspapers in office hours is desirable; (II) stopping this will not increase efficiency. Only conclusions directly implied by the statement should be accepted.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Proposal: Inform officers not to read newspapers during office hours.
- Conclusion I: Reading newspapers in office hours is desirable.
- Conclusion II: Office efficiency will not increase by stopping this practice.
Concept / Approach:
- A proposal to stop an activity typically implies the proposer believes the activity is undesirable, not desirable.
- However, beliefs about efficiency gains are not stated; the directive might be for discipline, optics, or policy uniformity.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Conclusion I contradicts the spirit of the directive; it does not follow.Conclusion II is also not implied; the statement does not speak about efficiency outcomes at all.
Verification / Alternative check:
Even if efficiency might increase or not, nothing in the text lets us conclude either way.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option asserting I or II adds unstated motives or effects. Hence only 'Neither' is valid.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing likely managerial motives with what strictly follows from the given sentence.
Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows
Discussion & Comments