Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Only conclusion I follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:The sentence is a classic expression of intellectual humility (often associated with Socratic thought). The speaker claims personal ignorance, not a universal thesis about the scope of all human knowledge. We must choose between: I) The writer’s knowledge is very poor. II) The world of knowledge is too vast for one person to explore fully.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Conclusion I paraphrases the speaker’s self-assessment, i.e., poor knowledge. Conclusion II introduces a universal claim about the vastness of knowledge—a plausible thought, but not stated or implied as the reason for the claim.
Step-by-Step Solution:
From the statement, infer the minimal claim: the writer considers their own knowledge negligible.Hence I follows: “Writer’s knowledge is very poor.”II does not follow because the statement does not generalize to the world’s knowledge being too vast; such an inference would need an extra premise.Verification / Alternative check:
Attempt to defend II from the text alone fails; the sentence contains no mention of “world’s knowledge,” only a self-directed admission.Why Other Options Are Wrong:
B: Accepts II which lacks textual basis.C and E: Include II; hence incorrect.D: Rejects I despite the explicit self-description.Common Pitfalls:
Letting background philosophy color the inference; sticking to what is entailed by the line itself is key.Final Answer:Only conclusion I follows
Discussion & Comments