Statement: “In the case of outstanding candidates, the condition of previous experience of social work may be waived by the Admission Committee for the M.A. (Social Work).” Conclusions: I. Some students for M.A. (Social Work) will have previous social-work experience. II. Some students for M.A. (Social Work) will not have previous social-work experience. Which conclusion(s) logically follow(s)?
-
AIf only Conclusion I follows
-
BIf only Conclusion II follows
-
CIf either Conclusion I or II follows
-
DIf both Conclusions I and II follow
-
EIf neither Conclusion I nor II follows
Answer
Correct Answer: If neither Conclusion I nor II follows
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The statement permits a waiver of prior experience for “outstanding” candidates; it does not assert how many such candidates will apply or be admitted.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Policy: prior experience may be waived for a subset (outstanding candidates).
- No data on the composition of the admitted cohort.
Concept / Approach:“May be waived” establishes a possibility, not a certainty about actual admissions. Without facts on who gets admitted, we cannot conclude existence of experienced or inexperienced students in the final cohort.
Step-by-Step Solution:
• I: “Some will have experience” is plausible but not guaranteed by the policy text.• II: “Some will not have experience” is also plausible but not compelled absent evidence that outstanding candidates without experience are admitted.• Therefore, neither conclusion necessarily follows.Verification / Alternative check:Edge cases: All admitted could still have experience (waiver unused), or all could be outstanding (waiver used but all had experience); the policy alone cannot settle it.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:They convert a permissive rule (“may waive”) into existence claims.
Common Pitfalls:Equating possibility with certainty in syllogisms.
Final Answer:If neither Conclusion I nor II follows.