Both I and II are invalid because they lack proper connectivity with the given statement.
Conclusion I is valid because if unemployment is the main reason behind poverty, then creating employment opportuities is the need of the hour. Conclusion II is invalid because of the presence of word 'all'.
Conclusion I is totally unrelated to the statement and Conclusion II is contrary to the statement. Hence, none of the conclusions follows.
Conclusion I is invalid conclusion as relation between Hari and shyam is not given. Conclusion II is valid because if Hari is the son of Suresh, then Suresh will definitely be the father of Hari.
Conclusions I and II convey almost the same meaning that principles related to Ethics and Morality seem to be good but are not practicable in real life. Hence, both the conclusions follow.
The statement says that greatest need in India is not for sophisticated gadgets but for programmes but this does not mean that there is an adequate number of sophisticated cannot be concluded that emphasis is being laid on procuring sophisticated gadgets. Hence, none of the conclusions follows.
According to the statement, good wranglers are wise-men But it doesn't mean that all wise-men are good wranglers. So, neither I not II follows.
According to the statement, only those who tackle situation bravely achieve success. So, Conclusion I follows, however Conclusion II is ambiguous with concern to the given statement and so does not follow.
In the statement it is said that morning walks are good for health. But it does not mean that all the healthy person go for morning walks. Hence, Conclusion I does not follow. Also, nothing is said about the evening walks in statement Thus, Conclusion II also does not follow.
The given statement does not tell anything about life. it only tells about problems and the way to escape from them. Hence, Conclusion II follows.
Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.