Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Neither I nor II follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
The minister provides a quantitative revenue estimate for a specific fare hike. We must not project hidden expectations or irrelevant personal details.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I imagines a benchmark (10%) that is never stated; revenue sufficiency/dissatisfaction does not imply a numeric expectation. Conclusion II is entirely unrelated to the policy statement.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Keep to the text: only a 5% → Rs 500 cr mapping is given.2) No grounds to infer a different target hike or wealth status.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option granting I or II relies on speculation outside the statement.
Common Pitfalls:
Reading policy dissatisfaction into a specific estimate; assuming personal attributes from office held.
Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows.
Discussion & Comments