Statement: “If you are attacked, it is legitimate under international law to exercise the right of hot pursuit. At this moment we are not considering it.” — Union Home Minister of country X Conclusions: I. Hot pursuit is the ultimate step. II. Country X has been attacked by another country.
-
Aif only conclusion I follows
-
Bif only conclusion II follows
-
Cif either I or II follows
-
Dif neither I nor II follows
-
ENone of these
Answer
Correct Answer: if neither I nor II follows
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The minister states a conditional legality (if attacked → hot pursuit is legitimate) and adds that it is not being considered currently. We must avoid importing additional facts.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Hot pursuit can be legal if attacked.
- Currently, the government is not considering it.
- No explicit statement of an attack having occurred.
Concept / Approach:From a conditional legal statement, we cannot rank hot pursuit among “ultimate” options; nor can we infer that an attack has actually happened. The second sentence even softens immediacy by saying it is not under consideration now.
Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: “Ultimate step” is a value judgment not present in the statement → does not follow.2) II: No assertion of a current/actual attack appears → does not follow.
Verification / Alternative check:If the statement had said “after we were attacked yesterday…,” II would follow; if it said “hot pursuit is the final recourse,” I would follow.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either: each treats possibility as fact.
Common Pitfalls:Confusing conditional legality with factual occurrence.
Final Answer:if neither I nor II follows