Statement: Ministers arrived at the public function in their cars. Conclusions: I) All ministers are rich. II) Ministers have cars. III) Ministers came to the public function.

Introduction / Context:We test which conclusions are necessarily implicit. “Arrived at the public function in their cars” conveys two direct facts: the ministers came to the function and they used cars identified as theirs (possession or official allotment). It says nothing about wealth.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Ministers arrived.
• Mode: their cars.
• No information about personal wealth or private ownership vs official vehicles.

Concept / Approach:III follows trivially (they came). II follows in the sense that the cars they arrived in are described as “their cars,” indicating availability/possession. I does not follow: arriving in cars does not imply richness; official cars could be provided by the state.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) Extract direct facts: attendance and conveyance.2) Reject socio-economic inference (richness) as unstated.

Verification / Alternative check:Even if all cars were government-issued, II still holds as “their cars” in official capacity; wealth inference remains speculative.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Any option including I imports assumptions beyond the statement.

Common Pitfalls:Equating car usage with wealth; confusing personal vs official possession.

Final Answer:Only II and III are implicit in the statement.