I is obvious from the statement. But the words ' equal effected' used in conclusion II can't be correlated with the statement. Hence, conclusion II does not follow.
Only conclusion I follows from the given statement. Facility to get the traffic update will not necessarily increase the sale of cellphone enormously. Hence conclusion II does not follow.
I does not follow. The deferring will not lead to an increase in prices. II follows because this is the reason behind deferring '' in view of volatility''.
Conclusion I does not follow because we can't draw it from the given statement due to lack of favourable clue. But having no such plan implies conclusion II.
We can't conclude about the specific facility which the Indian laboratory is equipped with, on the basis of the given statement. But conclusion II follows obviously.
Since bank rate is also an indicative rate for the banking system, conclusion I follows. But conclusion II does not follow because a mere 25-point cut in bank rate by the RBI is not sufficient to corroborate that the move of the RBI is an indication of a strong bias towards a soft interest rate regime.
Since raining does not depend upon whether the day is sunny, we cannot reach any definite conclusion regarding the day being sunny. But the day must be either sunny or not sunny.
I cannot be inferred because we do not know whether the decision of the jury was unanimous. It is possible that this member of the jury was had a dissenting opinion. II does not follow because it states just the contrary of what the statement says.
I is correct because if Kritiat is the work of Plato, it cannot be of small literary value. II does not follow because it bears no relationship with what the statement says.
In does not follow because the statement tells us nothing about ethyl alcohol. II follows because the poisonous methyl alcohol makes the methylated spirit poisonous.
Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.