Logic consistency: Statement: “She does not get a call when there is a strong network.” Select the pair that does not violate the rule and is jointly consistent. (i) She gets a call. (ii) There is a strong network. (iii) There is no network. (iv) She does not get a call.

Introduction / Context:
The statement is unusual but reads as: StrongNetwork → NoCall. We need a pair that is consistent with this rule (i.e., does not contradict it).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• If strong network is present, a call does not occur.
• The converse (NoCall → StrongNetwork) is not implied.

Concept / Approach:
Pairs not mentioning strong network can still be consistent provided they do not force a contradiction.

Step-by-Step Solution:
(iii) No network; (iv) She does not get a call → consistent, as the rule talks only about the strong-network case.

Verification / Alternative check:
(ii)(i) would violate the rule (strong network but she gets a call). (iv)(ii) tries to infer the converse, which is not logically valid.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They either contradict the implication or rely on unstated converses.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating “no call” with “strong network” (converse error).

Final Answer:
(iii) (iv)