Logic consistency: Statement: “When it is not raining, peacocks dance.” Select the pair that is consistent with this rule. (i) Peacocks are dancing. (ii) It is raining. (iii) Peacocks are not dancing. (iv) It is not raining.

Introduction / Context:
The rule is ¬Rain → Dance (if it is not raining, peacocks dance).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The rule does not assert anything about what happens when it is raining.

Concept / Approach:
The safest consistent pair is to assert the condition and its guaranteed outcome: not raining and dancing.

Step-by-Step Solution:
(iv) It is not raining; (i) Peacocks are dancing → consistent with ¬Rain → Dance.

Verification / Alternative check:
Pairs involving (ii) “It is raining” with dancing are not ruled out by the rule but do not follow from it; the test typically wants the direct cause→effect match.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They either state unrelated or potentially contradictory facts given the intended direction of implication.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “when” with biconditional (“if and only if”).

Final Answer:
(iv) (i)