Logical deduction – "only romantic boys give roses": Which pair is a valid consequence? (i) Ashok is romantic. (ii) Ashok gave roses to a girl. (iii) Ashok did not give roses to a girl. (iv) Ashok is a romantic boy.

Introduction / Context:"Only romantic boys give roses" means GiveRoses ⇒ RomanticBoy. It does not claim that all romantic boys give roses.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• If someone gave roses, they must be a romantic boy.

Concept / Approach:(ii) implies (iv) directly by the rule. Any converse pairing is not guaranteed.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:Counterexamples exist for (i) ⇒ (ii): a romantic boy may still choose not to give roses.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:(i) (ii) assumes converse. (i) (iii) is consistent but not a consequence. (ii) (i) is weaker than (ii) (iv) because it omits "boy" and romantic status exactly as stated.

Common Pitfalls:Confusing necessity with sufficiency.

Final Answer:(ii) (iv)