Political Logic – Interpreting intent without overreach Statement: The president of the XYZ Party stated that 25 independent MLAs are seriously considering options of joining some political party, and in any case they will all join one party collectively. Evaluate the conclusions.

Introduction / Context:
This question checks for over-interpretation. The statement signals two things: (1) the independents are exploring options, and (2) they will join the same party, but it does not specify which party or the timing. We must not assume facts not in evidence when evaluating conclusions I and II that name a specific outcome and timeframe.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• 25 independents are deliberating.
• They intend to join one party collectively.
• Neither the party’s identity nor a short deadline is provided.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusions must be necessitated by the statement. Predicting which party (XYZ vs. “some other”) or promising “in a short period” goes beyond the given. The only safe inference is that a joint move is contemplated—not which destination nor when.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows