Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Only (ii) and (iii)
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:Critical reasoning questions ask you to pick evidence that directly supports a claim—in this case, that Jayant failed to reach Pune specifically because tickets were unavailable. We need statements that show genuine attempts to get tickets and resulting failure.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:We want statements that, if true, make “no tickets” the plausible reason. That means evidence of persistent ticket attempts across channels and times without success; avoid statements that are irrelevant, alternative explanations, or weak.
Step-by-Step Reasoning:
(ii) shows an in-person attempt at the reservation counter on the day of travel—strongly supportive.(iii) shows multiple attempts through agents over several days—consistent with scarcity/unavailability.(i) is about booking a car for someone else’s picnic—does not bear on ticket availability to Pune.(iv) attending a dinner party is compatible with either reaching or not reaching Pune and does not diagnose the cause.(v) wife’s reluctance is an alternative motive and weakens causation by tickets.Verification / Alternative check:Ask: Does the statement make “no ticket” more likely than competing explanations? Only (ii) and (iii) directly do.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:Confusing “explaining why he didn’t go” with “supporting no-ticket unavailability.” Stick to evidence about ticket attempts.
Final Answer:Only (ii) and (iii)
Discussion & Comments