Argument strengthening – “Jayant could not reach Pune from Mumbai last Saturday due to non-availability of tickets.” Which statements best support and strengthen this claim?
-
AOnly (i), (ii) and (v)
-
BOnly (ii) and (iii)
-
COnly (iv) and (v)
-
DOnly (i), (iii) and (iv)
-
ENone of these
Answer
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:
- (i) He booked a car for a boss’s picnic for 3 days starting Friday evening.
- (ii) He was seen at the railway reservation counter requesting a ticket for Pune on Saturday morning.
- (iii) His secretary contacted several travel agents on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday morning to get a seat for him.
- (iv) He attended a dinner party on Saturday evening.
- (v) His wife was reluctant to go to Pune last week.
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:
- (i) adds noise; (iv) and (v) are irrelevant/alternative motives; their inclusion dilutes the causal line.
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)