Question 1

Logical Reasoning – Categorical conclusions from match data: In a one-day cricket match, a team scored 200 runs, of which 160 runs were made by spinners. Which conclusion(s) follow logically? (I) 80% of the team members are spinners; (II) The openin…

Accepted Answer

Given data Total team runs = 200; runs by spinners = 160. Conclusions under test: (I) 80% of players are spinners; (II) Openers were spinners. Concept/ApproachFrom aggregate runs by role, you cannot deduce player counts or batting order. Many runs can be made by a few spinners. Step-by-step reasoning• 160/200 = 80% of runs, not 80% of players. Hence (I) is a scope error.• No information is provided about batting order; (II) is unwarranted. Verification/AlternativeCounterexample: Two spinners score 160; the rest (non-spinners) score 40. Then players are not 80% spinners and openers may be non-spinners. Data still fits the premise. Common pitfalls Confusing percentage of runs with percentage of players. Inferring order or roles not mentioned in the premise. Final AnswerNeither I nor II follows.

Question 2

Logical Reasoning – Interpreting a proverb: The sentence "The old order changed, yielding place to new" leads to which conclusion(s)? (I) Change is the law of nature; (II) Discard old ideas solely because they are old.

Accepted Answer

Given data Premise: 'The old order changed, yielding place to new.' Conclusion I: Change is natural/inevitable. Conclusion II: Old ideas should be discarded because they are old. Concept/ApproachThe proverb asserts the inevitability of change, not a blanket prescription to reject all things old. Step-by-step reasoning• (I) is consistent: the assertion captures the general principle that change is a constant.• (II) introduces a fallacious reason (age alone) for discarding ideas; the premise does not advocate that. Verification/AlternativeA system can evolve while retaining valuable old elements; the proverb does not prohibit that. Common pitfalls Turning a descriptive maxim about change into a normative 'discard everything old' rule. Final AnswerOnly conclusion I follows.

Question 3

Logical reasoning — Statements and Conclusions (governance and institutional appointments): Evaluate which conclusions logically follow from the claim that the Government has spoiled many top-ranking financial institutions by appointing bureaucrats …

Accepted Answer

Given data Statement: Government has spoiled many top-ranking financial institutions by appointing bureaucrats as Directors. Conclusions to test: I: Government should appoint Directors considering the person's expertise in finance. II: The Director of a financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the institute’s financial work. Concept/Approach In statement–conclusion questions, a conclusion “follows” if it is a necessary, reasonable inference or prescriptive remedy directly suggested by the stated cause–effect relationship. The statement blames unsuitable appointments (bureaucrats) for spoiling institutions, implicitly highlighting lack of relevant financial expertise as the root cause. Step-by-Step reasoning1) From “spoiled due to appointing bureaucrats” to “appoint by finance expertise”: The critique presumes that relevant domain expertise matters. Therefore, a corrective action (appoint based on finance expertise) logically follows ⇒ Conclusion I follows.2) If lack of suitability is the core problem, then suitability must match the financial work the institute undertakes. This makes “expertise commensurate with the work” a direct corollary ⇒ Conclusion II follows. Verification/Alternative Even if some bureaucrats may personally have finance expertise, the statement’s general blame implies systematic misfit, and the natural remedy is to demand appropriate, commensurate expertise for Directors (I and II). Common pitfalls Assuming the statement recommends “no bureaucrats ever.” The logic concerns expertise fit, not labels; a bureaucrat with proven finance expertise could still satisfy the remedy. Final AnswerBoth I and II follow.

Question 4

Logical reasoning — Demography and resources: From the statement that developing countries will face population increase with depleting resources, determine which conclusion about future quality of life and population trend logically follows

Accepted Answer

Given data Statement: Population increase coupled with depleting resources will be the scenario of many developing countries in days to come. Conclusions to test: I: The population of developing countries will not continue to increase in future. II: It will be very difficult for governments of developing countries to provide decent quality of life. Concept/Approach We evaluate each conclusion against the statement without importing external facts. A conclusion follows if it is consistent, necessary, and reasonably implied. Step-by-Step reasoning1) Conclusion I contradicts the statement (which clearly expects population increase). Hence I does not follow.2) With demand rising (more people) and supply pressures (depleting resources), maintaining decent quality of life becomes more difficult. This is a reasonable, direct inference ⇒ II follows. Verification/Alternative Even if some countries mitigate resource pressure via technology, the general claim is about “many” developing countries and the difficulty is a logical outcome of the stated scenario. Common pitfalls Reading “difficult” as “impossible.” The conclusion states difficulty, not impossibility. Final AnswerOnly conclusion II follows.

Question 5

Logical reasoning — Media consumption among urban school-goers: TV viewing increased and newspaper readership declined; decide which proposed response or study recommendation logically follows

Accepted Answer

Given data Statement: Urban prime-age school children have become avid and more regular TV viewers, even in households without a TV; consequently, there is an alarming decline in newspaper readership. Conclusions to test: I: Methods to increase newspaper readership should be devised. II: Send a team abroad to study TV’s impact on newspaper readership in other countries. Concept/Approach An observed decline suggests a remedial need directly tied to the problem. A foreign study is an additional, specific action not directly indicated by the statement. Step-by-Step reasoning1) If readership is “alarmingly” down, it is logical to devise methods to reverse the trend ⇒ I follows.2) The statement does not imply that international benchmarking is necessary; it could be useful, but it is not a compelled inference ⇒ II does not follow. Verification/Alternative Local experiments, content redesign, or delivery innovations could address the issue without any overseas study, showing II is not required. Common pitfalls Confusing a possible action with a logically necessary action. Final AnswerOnly conclusion I follows.

Question 6

Logical reasoning — Epidemiology and diet patterns: Japanese cancer incidence changes after immigration to Hawaii and diet shifts; determine which conclusion about adopting Hawaii’s diet or relative severity logically follows

Accepted Answer

Given data Statement: In Japan, stomach cancer is high and bowel cancer low; among Japanese who immigrate to Hawaii, in the next generation bowel cancer rises and stomach cancer falls. These patterns relate to nutrition because diets differ between Japan and Hawaii. Conclusions to test: I: Japan should propagate Hawaii’s diet. II: Bowel cancer is less severe than stomach cancer. Concept/Approach The statement reports correlations and a suspected explanatory factor (diet). It does not evaluate severity, nor prescribe a national dietary policy that could trade one disease pattern for another without weighing risks. Step-by-Step reasoning1) I does not follow: adopting Hawaii’s diet may reduce stomach cancer but is associated with higher bowel cancer among descendants. No net-benefit claim or policy recommendation is given.2) II does not follow: the text provides no information comparing the medical severity of these cancers. Verification/Alternative Even if diet influences incidence, appropriate policy would require risk–benefit analysis, which the statement does not provide. Thus, neither conclusion is compelled. Common pitfalls Equating correlation with policy prescription. Assuming medical severity from incidence alone. Final AnswerNeither I nor II follows.

Question 7

Logical reasoning — Workplace disclosure directive: Employees resist declaring income and assets; assess which conclusion about undisclosed income or sequencing of senior officers’ disclosure logically follows

Accepted Answer

Given data Statement: A government-run company asked employees to declare income and assets; employees’ union strongly resisted and no employee will declare. Conclusions to test: I: Employees do not have any undisclosed income beyond salary. II: The union wants all senior officers to declare first. Concept/Approach The statement reports resistance but does not state reasons or conditions. Hence we cannot infer absence of undisclosed income (I) or a conditional demand about seniors (II). Step-by-Step reasoning1) I does not follow: resistance could arise for many reasons (privacy, principle, distrust). Claiming “no undisclosed income” is not warranted.2) II does not follow: there is no mention of any “officers-first” condition. Verification/Alternative Even if some employees are fully compliant in spirit, the observed blanket resistance gives no detail that supports either conclusion. Common pitfalls Projecting motivations or conditions not mentioned in the statement. Final AnswerNeither I nor II follows.

Question 8

Logical reasoning — Social development programmes: Monitoring via Management Information Systems (MIS) to obtain feedback on performance and service delivery; determine which conclusions about evaluation and worker monitoring follow

Accepted Answer

Given data Statement: Monitoring is integral in planning social development programmes; MIS is recommended for all programmes to provide feedback on functionaries’ performance and service delivery efficacy. Conclusions to test: I: All social development programmes should be evaluated. II: There is a need to monitor the performance of workers. Concept/Approach If monitoring is integral and MIS is recommended for all programmes specifically to capture performance and efficacy, both evaluation (I) and worker performance monitoring (II) are explicit implications. Step-by-Step reasoning1) MIS for all programmes to generate feedback implies programme-level evaluation ⇒ I follows.2) Purpose includes feedback on functionaries’ performance ⇒ II follows directly. Verification/Alternative Remove the need to evaluate or monitor, and the recommendation of MIS loses its stated purpose, confirming both conclusions. Common pitfalls Assuming “evaluation” is optional when the statement makes monitoring a core planning component. Final AnswerBoth I and II follow.

Question 9

Logical reasoning — Media content aimed at women: TV programmes and magazines heavily feature recipes and household hints; decide whether women's broader interests or primary interests can be inferred

Accepted Answer

Given data Statement: TV programmes telecast especially for women are packed with recipes and household hints; a major portion of women’s magazines also contains these items. Conclusions to test: I: Women are not interested in other things. II: An average woman’s primary interest lies in home, especially the kitchen. Concept/Approach Programming mix can suggest primary target interests but cannot prove absence of all other interests. Conclusion I is an overstatement; II is a moderated inference aligned with the content emphasis. Step-by-Step reasoning1) I does not follow: “not interested in other things” is absolute and unsupported.2) II follows: sustained content emphasis reasonably reflects a primary interest in home/kitchen among the target audience. Verification/Alternative If producers repeatedly select such content, they likely respond to perceived majority preferences, supporting II but not the absolute I. Common pitfalls Conflating “primary interest” with “only interest.” Final AnswerOnly conclusion II follows.

Question 10

Logical reasoning — Transport economics: Shorter sea route (900 km by road vs 280 km by sea) yields annual fuel savings; infer whether transportation by sea is cheaper than by road or whether fuel must be saved at all costs

Accepted Answer

Given data Statement: The 900 km road distance between Bombay and Jafra is reduced to 280 km by sea, leading to Rs. 7.92 crores per annum saving on fuel. Conclusions to test: I: Transportation by sea is cheaper than by road. II: Fuel must be saved to the greatest extent. Concept/Approach The statement gives a concrete cost saving (fuel) attributable to the sea option. It does not state a universal moral imperative about saving fuel at any cost. Step-by-Step reasoning1) I follows in the relevant sense: for this route, sea transport yields demonstrably lower fuel cost, supporting a “cheaper” inference versus road (at least with respect to fuel expenditure).2) II does not follow: “must be saved to the greatest extent” is a value prescription absent from the statement. Verification/Alternative Even if other cost components (time, handling) exist, the statement’s highlighted saving directly supports a cheaper-by-sea inference on fuel cost. No universal dictum about fuel saving is implied. Common pitfalls Interpreting “cheaper” as “cheaper in every cost component.” The given evidence is about fuel savings, which is sufficient for a comparative cheaper inference in typical reasoning tests. Final AnswerOnly conclusion I follows.

Question 11

Logical reasoning — Workplace dynamics: Manager humiliates Sachin before colleagues; assess whether dislike or Sachin’s popularity status logically follows from the incident

Accepted Answer

Given data Statement: The manager humiliated Sachin in the presence of his colleagues. Conclusions to test: I: The manager did not like Sachin. II: Sachin was not popular with his colleagues. Concept/Approach One event (humiliation) does not prove underlying attitudes (dislike) or colleagues’ popularity judgments without additional context. Step-by-Step reasoning1) I does not follow: humiliation could stem from stress, policy enforcement, or a specific incident, not necessarily personal dislike.2) II does not follow: colleagues’ reactions or views are not described. Verification/Alternative If other evidence (emails, prior behavior) showed dislike, I could follow, but none is provided here. Common pitfalls Inferring stable attitudes from a single observed act. Final AnswerNeither I nor II follows.

Question 12

Logical reasoning — Workplace policy and gender safety: Women’s organisations welcome amendment to Industrial Employment Rules, 1946 to curb sexual harassment; determine whether prevalence comparisons or hiring deterrence follow

Accepted Answer

Given data Statement: Women’s organisations in India welcomed the amendment of the Industrial Employment Rules, 1946 to curb sexual harassment at the workplace. Conclusions to test: I: Sexual harassment at workplaces is more prevalent in India than in other developed countries. II: Many organisations in India will stop recruiting women to avoid such problems. Concept/Approach The statement indicates support for a curbing measure; it does not provide cross-country prevalence data (I) nor predict employers’ future hiring practices (II). Step-by-Step reasoning1) I does not follow: no comparative statistics are provided.2) II does not follow: there is no basis to infer a broad hiring deterrent effect. Verification/Alternative Welcoming a policy can arise from a desire to improve safeguards regardless of international comparisons or hiring outcomes. Common pitfalls Adding external knowledge or assumptions not present in the statement. Final AnswerNeither I nor II follows.

Question 13

Logical Reasoning – Statements and Conclusions (international relations): Nation X has faced growing international opposition because it decided to explode eight nuclear weapons at its test site. Based on this information alone, determine which of t…

Accepted Answer

Given data Statement: Nation X faced growing international opposition for exploding eight nuclear weapons at its test site. Conclusion I: Citizens of Nation X favored the decision. Conclusion II: Some powerful countries oppose other nations becoming equally powerful. Concept/ApproachWe test each conclusion for logical necessity—it must follow directly from the statement without adding unstated causes, motives, or public-opinion data. Step-by-step evaluation• Conclusion I adds an internal public-opinion claim (citizens’ support). The statement gives only international (external) reaction; it says nothing about domestic support or opposition. Hence I does not follow.• Conclusion II imputes motives to powerful countries (power balancing). The statement merely notes opposition; it does not specify why (e.g., non-proliferation norms, treaty violations, regional stability). Therefore II does not follow. Verification/AlternativeIf citizens were divided or opposed, the statement could still be true. If opposition stemmed from treaty concerns (not power jealousy), the statement also remains true. Thus, neither conclusion is compelled. Common pitfalls Inferring domestic sentiment from international reactions. Projecting motives not stated in the premise. Final AnswerNeither I nor II follows.

Question 14

Analytical Reasoning – Power structures and consensus: In a highly centralized power setup where even senior cabinet ministers become yes-men who anticipate or mirror the Prime Minister’s views, genuine consensus is replaced by orchestrated unanimit…

Accepted Answer

Given data Premise: Centralized power → ministers reduce themselves to yes-men; consensus is merely contrived unanimity endorsing the leader. Conclusion I: Ministers avoid anti-government/dissenting views. Conclusion II: The PM does not encourage colleagues’ independent views. Concept/ApproachIf ministers are 'yes-men', dissent is suppressed and independent advice is disincentivized. Both conclusions are immediate implications. Step-by-step evaluation• From 'yes-men' behavior and orchestrated endorsements, it follows that airing anti-government views would not occur → I follows.• A climate that yields contrived unanimity rather than real consensus implies the leader discourages independent input → II follows. VerificationIf ministers did air independent/anti views, the observed 'orchestrated unanimity' would break. Likewise, if the PM encouraged independent views, ministers would not reduce themselves to yes-men. Common pitfalls Reading 'consensus' as genuine agreement rather than coerced unanimity described here. Final AnswerBoth I and II follow.

Question 15

Statements & Conclusions – Industrial economics: “National Aluminium Company has moved India from a position of shortage to self-sufficiency in aluminium.” From this, decide which conclusions logically follow: (I) Earlier, India had to import alumin…

Accepted Answer

Given data Premise: Country moved from shortage to self-sufficiency in aluminium due to NALCO. Conclusion I: Previously, aluminium was imported to meet the gap. Conclusion II: India will soon export aluminium and earn foreign exchange. Concept/Approach'Shortage' relative to demand is typically bridged by imports or unmet demand. For a national account, persistent shortage commonly entails imports. 'Self-sufficiency' means domestic production now meets domestic demand, removing the prior dependence. Step-by-step evaluation• Conclusion I is a reasonable and direct inference: moving from shortage to self-sufficiency implies that earlier domestic supply was inadequate and, in a standard trade scenario, the deficit was met by imports.• Conclusion II is speculative extrapolation (about future exports and pace). The premise does not state output will exceed demand or continue increasing; thus II does not follow. VerificationSelf-sufficiency = domestic supply ≈ domestic demand, not necessarily a surplus. Hence export inference is not compelled. Common pitfalls Projecting future trends (exports) from a present status (self-sufficient) without evidence. Final AnswerOnly conclusion I follows.

Question 16

Causal Reasoning – Plant properties: “Jade plant has thick leaves and it requires little water.” Decide which conclusions follow logically: (I) All plants with thick leaves require little water; (II) Jade plants can be grown where water is not abund…

Accepted Answer

Given data Observation about one species: Jade has thick leaves and low water requirement. Conclusion I: Universal generalization for all thick-leaf plants. Conclusion II: Practical cultivation feasibility in low-water regions. Concept/ApproachFrom a single example, universal generalizations are invalid. However, the cited property (low water need) supports a practical conclusion for that species. Step-by-step evaluation• I overgeneralizes from one plant to all plants—this is a classic fallacy of hasty generalization. It does not follow.• II uses the specific trait (requires little water) to infer suitability in water-scarce areas. This is a reasonable, direct implication → II follows. Common pitfalls Confusing an existence claim (“Jade has…”) with a universal rule (“All plants have…”). Final AnswerOnly conclusion II follows.

Question 17

Critical Interpretation of Advertisements: The advertisement says, “Use ‘Kraft’ colours. They add colour to our life.” Determine which conclusions, if any, logically follow: (I) Catchy slogans do not attract people; (II) People prefer dark colours.

Accepted Answer

Given data Premise: An advertising slogan praising a product (“Kraft” colours). Conclusion I: Catchy slogans fail to attract. Conclusion II: People like dark colours. Concept/ApproachAds are persuasive claims; they do not, by themselves, establish general truths about consumer response or color preferences without supporting data. Step-by-step evaluation• The ad’s existence cannot prove that slogans do not attract customers; indeed it presumes the opposite. I does not follow.• The ad never mentions 'dark' colors or any preference survey. II also does not follow. Final AnswerNeither I nor II follows.

Question 18

Legal/Logical Reasoning – Bail conditions: “All political prisoners who went to jail for reasons other than political dharnas were released on bail. Bail was not granted to persons involved in murders.” Decide which conclusions follow: (I) No politi…

Accepted Answer

Given data Rule 1: Political prisoners jailed for reasons other than political dharnas → released on bail. Rule 2: No bail for persons involved in murders. Conclusion I: No political prisoner committed murder. Conclusion II: Some politicians were not arrested. Concept/ApproachWe must avoid scope shifts (political prisoners vs. politicians at large) and unwarranted universal claims. Step-by-step evaluation• From the rules, if any political prisoner had committed murder, that person would not be granted bail. But the statements never say all political prisoners were granted bail—only a subset (those jailed for reasons other than dharnas) were. Thus we cannot infer that none had committed murder → I does not follow.• II talks about 'politicians' and their arrest status, which the premises do not discuss (they speak of political prisoners). This is a category shift; II does not follow. Final AnswerNeither I nor II follows.

Question 19

Philosophical Reasoning – Human agency and options: “Modern man influences his destiny by the choices he makes, unlike in the past.” Determine which conclusion(s) follow: (I) Earlier there were fewer options available to people; (II) In the past the…

Accepted Answer

Given data Premise: Nowadays, people shape destiny through choices; this contrasts with the past. Conclusion I: Previously, options/opportunities were fewer (limiting influence). Conclusion II: Earlier, people lacked the desire to influence destiny. Concept/ApproachThe contrast implies constraints in the past (fewer choices or limited agency), not necessarily an absence of desire. Step-by-step evaluation• The statement suggests structural differences (availability/effectiveness of choices). Hence I reasonably follows.• The premise does not comment on internal motivation or desire; it addresses ability/effect. Therefore II does not follow. Common pitfalls Confusing capacity/opportunity with desire/motivation. Final AnswerOnly conclusion I follows.

Question 20

Applied Logic – Public notice on water supply: “Water supply in wards A and B will be reduced by about 50% on Friday due to main line repairs.” Which conclusions follow: (I) Residents in these wards should economize water on Friday; (II) Residents s…

Accepted Answer

Given data Fact: Supply will be reduced by ~50% on Friday in wards A and B. Conclusions: (I) Economize on Friday; (II) Store water in advance. Concept/ApproachThese are rational, directly recommended actions given the announced shortage. They are immediate, practical consequences. Step-by-step evaluation• Less supply on the day → consumption should be economized → I follows.• Anticipated shortage → pre-storage is prudent → II follows. Final AnswerBoth I and II follow.

Statement and Conclusion Questions

Questions

Practice smarter