Logic consistency: Statement: “When Baby wears only sari, Crazy goes bungee jumping.” Select the consistent pair. (i) Baby wore sari. (ii) Crazy went bungee jumping. (iii) Baby wore only sari. (iv) Crazy did not go bungee jumping.

Introduction / Context:
The rule is: OnlySari → Jumps (if Baby wore only sari, then Crazy surely jumped).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• “Only sari” is stronger than “sari.”

Concept / Approach:
Pick the pair reflecting the condition and its effect (order may be effect–cause in options but should be consistent).

Step-by-Step Solution:
(ii) Crazy jumped; (iii) Baby wore only sari → consistent with the implication.

Verification / Alternative check:
Note that (i) “wore sari” alone is not sufficient to guarantee the jump (it must be “only sari”).

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They either negate the guaranteed outcome or use an insufficient antecedent.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “sari” with “only sari.”

Final Answer:
(ii) (iii)