Question 1

A study of native born residents in Newland found that two thirds of the children developed considerable nearsightedness after starting school, while their illiterate parents and grandparents, who had no opportunity for formal schooling, showed no s…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This statement and conclusion question uses a small research scenario to test logical reasoning. We are told that in Newland, two thirds of native born children developed significant nearsightedness after they started school, while their illiterate parents and grandparents with no formal schooling did not show this problem. We have to decide which conclusion is most strongly supported by these observations, keeping in mind the difference between strong support and absolute proof. Given Data / Assumptions: Most children in the study developed considerable nearsightedness after they began formal schooling. The children studied are native born residents of Newland. Their parents and grandparents are illiterate and did not have the chance to attend school. The older generations show no signs of nearsightedness. Concept / Approach: We must compare each proposed conclusion with the evidence. Statement A says that only people who attend school develop nearsightedness. This uses the extreme word only, which is risky because we are not told anything about people in other countries or about people who get nearsightedness for different reasons. Statement B claims that the children s nearsightedness is caused by visual stress from reading and classroom work. This is not proved with certainty, but the pattern of the data strongly suggests that something associated with schooling, most plausibly intense near work, is responsible. Therefore B is more strongly supported than A. Option C says both A and B are supported, which is too strong because A clearly goes beyond the data. Option D says none of the conclusions is supported, which is too pessimistic because the study does give strong evidence connecting schooling with the children s nearsightedness. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Note that children who start school develop nearsightedness, whereas their illiterate elders did not, even though all belong to the same population.Step 2: Observe that the main systematic difference described is access to formal schooling, which involves a lot of close vision tasks such as reading textbooks and writing.Step 3: Consider conclusion A. It claims that only people who attend school can develop nearsightedness. The study does not mention other groups, such as literate adults who learned in other ways or people in other countries.Step 4: Because A makes a universal claim that goes well beyond the limited study sample, it is not the best supported conclusion.Step 5: Consider conclusion B. It directly links children s nearsightedness to visual stress of reading and classroom work, which fits the timing and the contrast with older non schooled generations.Step 6: Given the correlation between starting school and onset of nearsightedness, B is the most sensible and strongly supported explanation among the options. Verification / Alternative check: Check whether an alternative cause such as heredity is consistent with the data. If nearsightedness were purely inherited, we would expect at least some parents or grandparents to show it, but they do not.The fact that the condition appears after children enter school suggests an environmental cause, most likely the visual tasks demanded there, which supports B.Because the study is limited to Newland, we cannot safely say that only schooled people anywhere can become nearsighted, which undermines conclusion A. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A overgeneralises from the sample and asserts a universal rule about all people, which the data do not justify.Option C is wrong because it includes A, which as argued is not strongly supported.Option D is wrong because the pattern of nearsightedness appearing only after schooling does give strong support to the idea that schooling related visual stress is a major cause. Common Pitfalls: Reasoning questions often include an option that uses absolute words like only, all, or never. These are usually too strong unless the passage explicitly uses such language.Learners sometimes think that because a study does not prove medical causation with experiments, no conclusion at all is supported. However, in test questions we select the conclusion that is best supported relative to the others. Final Answer: Thus the conclusion that best fits the given evidence is that the children s nearsightedness is caused by the visual stress of school work, so the correct answer is The nearsightedness in the children is most likely caused by the visual stress required by reading and other classroom work.

Question 2

Seven people A, B, C, D, E, F and G live on separate floors of a seven floor building (1 is the ground floor, 7 is the top floor). Each person owns a different car model among Cadillac, Ambassador, Fiat, Maruti, Mercedes, Bedford and Fargo. Based on…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a multi condition logical arrangement puzzle. Seven people live on different floors of a building and each owns a distinct car model. Various clues relate floors to each other and to car types. The specific question asks for the number of people living between D and the person who owns the Bedford car. To answer it we must carefully decode each condition, build a consistent model of floors and cars, and then read off the required distance. Given Data / Assumptions: The building has floors numbered 1 to 7, with 1 at the bottom and 7 at the top. Each of A, B, C, D, E, F, G lives on a different floor. Each person has one different car: Cadillac, Ambassador, Fiat, Maruti, Mercedes, Bedford, Fargo. Only three people live above A, so A must be on the 4th floor. Only one person lives between A and the Cadillac owner. F lives immediately below the Bedford owner, and the Bedford owner lives on an even numbered floor. Only three people live between the Cadillac owner and the Maruti owner. E lives immediately above C, and E does not have the Maruti car. Only two people live between B and the Fargo owner, and the Fargo owner lives below B. The Fiat owner does not live immediately above D or immediately below B. D does not live immediately above or immediately below A. G does not have the Ambassador car. Concept / Approach: The correct approach is to use systematic deduction. We first fix A on floor 4, then place the Cadillac owner on either floor 2 or floor 6 because exactly one person is between them. Next we use the conditions about E and C being consecutive, F being just below the Bedford owner, and the gap patterns for Maruti and Fargo to narrow down all possibilities. Trying all consistent combinations step by step produces a unique arrangement of people and cars across floors. From this final arrangement we can then count the number of floors that lie strictly between D and the Bedford owner. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Place A on floor 4 because only three people live above A.Step 2: The Cadillac owner must be two floors away from A (one person in between). So the Cadillac owner is either on floor 2 or floor 6. Testing both cases along with all other conditions leads to one consistent scenario.Step 3: Respect that E lives immediately above C. This means (C,E) must occupy consecutive floors such as (1,2), (2,3) and so on, and they cannot violate the positions already fixed for A and others.Step 4: Use the fact that F lives immediately below the Bedford owner on an even numbered floor. So Bedford can be on floor 2, 4, or 6 and F will be on floor 1, 3, or 5 respectively. This must coexist with A on floor 4 and the pattern for Cadillac and Maruti.Step 5: Apply the condition that there are three persons between the Cadillac and the Maruti owners and the constraints for B and the Fargo owner. After all eliminations, one full arrangement satisfies every clue.Step 6: In the valid arrangement D ends up on floor 7, A (who owns the Bedford) on floor 4, so the floors in between are floor 5 and floor 6, meaning there are exactly two people living between D and the Bedford owner. Verification / Alternative check: Once a full layout is found, re check each original condition for consistency: A on the 4th floor with three people above, E just above C, F immediately below the Bedford owner on an even floor, correct gaps for Cadillac and Maruti, correct positions for Fargo relative to B, and all car assignments unique.Confirm that D is indeed on floor 7 while the Bedford owner is on floor 4, leaving floors 5 and 6 occupied by other people.Since every condition is satisfied and the separation count of two people is clear, the answer is stable and does not change under any alternative configuration. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A would require only one person living between D and the Bedford owner, but in the consistent arrangement there are two.Option C and Option D imply three or four people between the two positions, which would shift one of them off the floors determined by the combined constraints and break at least one condition. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to try to jump straight to the answer without constructing the full arrangement. In complex floor and car puzzles, skipping steps usually leads to inconsistent assumptions.Another pitfall is to ignore the requirement that all conditions must hold simultaneously; satisfying only a subset of clues can give misleading partial patterns. Final Answer: In the only arrangement that satisfies all conditions, exactly two people live between the floors of D and the Bedford owner. Therefore, the correct answer is Two.

Question 3

Mr A, Miss B, Mr C and Miss D are sitting around a table and each one has a different trade: cook, barber, washer man and tailor. It is known that Mr A sits opposite the cook, Miss B sits to the right of the barber, the washer man sits on the left o…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This reasoning problem combines a circular seating arrangement with assignment of different trades to four people. The question gives positional clues about who sits opposite whom and who sits to the right or left of which trade. Our goal is to use these clues to determine the trades of Mr A and Miss B specifically. The puzzle tests spatial reasoning and the ability to reconcile several relative position statements at once. Given Data / Assumptions: Four people sit around a circular table: Mr A, Miss B, Mr C, Miss D. The four trades are cook, barber, washer man, and tailor, one for each person. Mr A sits opposite to the cook. Miss B sits to the right of the barber. The washer man sits on the left of the tailor. Miss D sits opposite Mr C. Right and left are considered with respect to the centre of the table in the same direction of seating order. Concept / Approach: To solve, we place the four seats around a circle and use opposite pairs and relative left right positions. We first fix one person in a reference position, because circular problems are rotationally symmetric. Then we place the second person opposite where required, and gradually assign trades that satisfy left and right relationships. In such small puzzles, we can test possible assignments one by one and quickly eliminate inconsistent combinations until a single valid seating and trade assignment remains. The trades of A and B can then be read from this configuration. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Place Mr C at any seat as a reference, for example at the top. Because Miss D sits opposite Mr C, Miss D must sit directly opposite.Step 2: The remaining two seats are then occupied by Mr A and Miss B in some order. We do not yet fix which is where.Step 3: Use the condition Mr A sits opposite the cook. So whoever is cook must be seated facing Mr A, that is, the person sitting directly opposite A.Step 4: Use the condition that the washer man sits to the left of the tailor. Around the table this fixes a particular adjacency relationship between those two trades.Step 5: Apply the condition that Miss B sits to the right of the barber. So Miss B must occupy the seat immediately clockwise from whoever has the barber trade.Step 6: When all possibilities are tested consistently, the only arrangement that satisfies every condition has Mr A as the tailor and Miss B as the cook, while Mr C and Miss D take the remaining two trades. Verification / Alternative check: Check that in the found configuration Mr A is opposite the cook. Since Miss B is the cook and sits across from A, this condition holds.Confirm that the washer man sits on the left of the tailor. With Mr A as tailor, the washer man is placed on his left, matching the rule.Check that Miss B sits to the right of the barber and that Miss D is opposite Mr C. All statements are satisfied simultaneously, so the arrangement is valid. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (Tailor and barber) assigns Miss B as barber, but then it is impossible for her to sit to the right of the barber because she would be the barber herself.Option C (Barber and cook) makes Mr A the barber, which conflicts with the requirement for the washer man to sit to the left of the tailor under the remaining placements.Option D (Washer man and cook) fails to satisfy the opposite relations along with the left right constraints when tested thoroughly. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to forget that in a circle there are two possible directions for right and left, so students sometimes mirror the positions incorrectly.Another pitfall is to stop checking after a few conditions seem to fit, without verifying that all given statements hold simultaneously. Final Answer: The only consistent assignment is that Mr A is the tailor and Miss B is the cook, so the correct answer is Tailor and cook.

Question 4

Sally has never received a violation from the Federal Aviation Administration during her sixteen year flying career, so she must be a great pilot. What can best be said about the reasoning used in this argument?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This critical reasoning question asks us to evaluate the structure of an argument. The argument claims that because Sally has never received a violation from the Federal Aviation Administration in sixteen years, she must be a great pilot. We are not judging whether the conclusion is true but whether the reasoning pattern is sound or depends on unstated assumptions. Recognising hidden assumptions is a key skill in logical analysis. Given Data / Assumptions: Premise: Sally has had a sixteen year flying career. Premise: During this time she has never received a violation from the Federal Aviation Administration. Conclusion: Therefore Sally must be a great pilot. No other information about her training, performance in emergencies, or flying conditions is provided. Concept / Approach: The argument moves from absence of official violations to a strong positive conclusion about professional greatness. For this to be logically persuasive, several extra assumptions must hold, such as that all bad pilots receive violations and that violation records are a complete and accurate measure of pilot quality. These assumptions are not stated in the argument but are necessary to bridge the gap from premises to conclusion. Therefore the argument is best described as relying on hidden assumptions. It is not circular, because the conclusion is not restating a premise, and it is not an analogy, because the argument does not compare Sally to another case explicitly. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Write the structure clearly: If a pilot never receives an FAA violation in sixteen years, then that pilot is great. Sally fits the first part, so she must be great.Step 2: Ask what must be true for this pattern to be valid. We would need that the FAA detects every serious mistake and always issues violations for them.Step 3: We would also need that a great pilot is defined entirely or mainly by having no violations rather than by decision making skills, training, or handling difficult conditions.Step 4: Notice that none of these conditions are stated; they are simply assumed in the background. If they are not true, then the argument might not hold.Step 5: Check the answer choices and match this pattern to the description that the argument is built upon hidden assumptions. Verification / Alternative check: Check option A. The terms used, such as violation and great pilot, are understandable in context and not especially ambiguous; the flaw is not about unclear definitions.Check option B. Circular reasoning would mean the conclusion simply restates a premise, for example saying Sally is a great pilot because she is an excellent aviator. That is not happening here.Check option C. An analogy argument would compare Sally to some other pilot or group of pilots and then claim similar results. This argument does not do that either.Therefore only option D correctly describes the dependence on unstated background beliefs. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is wrong because any vagueness in great pilot is secondary; the core issue is the leap from no violations to greatness.Option B is wrong since the argument does not assume as true what it aims to prove; it uses empirical premises but extends them too far.Option C is wrong because no explicit comparison is made to another case or example. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse hidden assumptions with circular reasoning, but circular arguments usually repeat the conclusion in a different form as a premise.Another pitfall is to focus on whether we personally agree that Sally is probably skilled instead of analysing the logical structure that leads from evidence to conclusion. Final Answer: The reasoning depends on unstated beliefs about how violations relate to pilot quality, so the best description is that the argument is built upon hidden assumptions.

Question 5

Most of the fastest growing jobs in today's economy will require a college degree, but many new jobs such as home health aide and desktop publisher require knowledge other than that gained from a degree. For workers in those jobs, good basic skills …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about drawing logically valid conclusions from a short passage. The passage contrasts fastest growing jobs that require a college degree with many new jobs that do not require degree based knowledge but still demand strong basic skills. It specifically names home health aide and desktop publisher as examples of those jobs. We must decide which conclusion follows directly and safely from the information given, without adding extra assumptions or overstating the claims. Given Data / Assumptions: Most of the fastest growing jobs will require a college degree. Many of the new jobs being created, for example home health aide and desktop publisher, require knowledge other than that gained from a degree. For workers in those jobs, basic skills in reading, communication, and mathematics play an important role in getting a job and developing a career. The phrase those jobs refers to jobs like home health aide and desktop publisher mentioned just before. Concept / Approach: The key move is to track the reference of pronouns such as those jobs. In the final sentence the passage states that for workers in those jobs, basic skills play an important role in getting a job and developing a career. Those jobs clearly includes desktop publisher. Therefore we can safely conclude that such skills are important for desktop publishers. On the other hand, statement B says the majority of all new jobs require knowledge beyond degrees. The passage only says many of the new jobs, which is weaker than majority. Thus B goes beyond what is stated and is not valid. Option C is invalid because B is invalid, and option D is incorrect because statement A is supported. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the example jobs: home health aide and desktop publisher are given as examples of new jobs that require knowledge other than that gained from a degree.Step 2: Notice that the phrase those jobs in the final sentence directly refers to this group of example jobs.Step 3: The text clearly states that for workers in those jobs, good basic skills in reading, communication, and mathematics play an important role in getting a job and developing a career.Step 4: Since desktop publisher is one of those jobs, the statement in option A about desktop publishing careers is just a specific restatement of the general claim and is therefore valid.Step 5: Evaluate statement B. The passage never uses terms like majority or most for the group of new jobs that require knowledge other than degree knowledge. It only says many, so we cannot logically upgrade many to majority.Step 6: Therefore, A can be concluded, B cannot, so the correct choice is option A. Verification / Alternative check: Re read the passage carefully to confirm that there is no statement claiming that more than half of all new jobs are of the non degree knowledge type.Verify that the phrase those jobs grammatically refers to home health aide and desktop publisher type jobs, which supports applying the sentence about skills directly to desktop publishers.Check that no other answer choice more accurately reflects the given information than option A. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B exaggerates the passage by changing many to majority, which is logically invalid.Option C claims both A and B are correct, but because B is not supported, C is also wrong.Option D is wrong because at least one conclusion, namely A, is clearly supported by the passage. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to overlook the difference between many and majority in logical reasoning questions. Examiners often use this subtle difference to test careful reading.Another pitfall is losing track of what a phrase like those jobs refers to; if that reference is misread, candidates may fail to see that statement A is directly supported. Final Answer: Thus the safe and valid conclusion is that skills in reading, communication, and mathematics play an important role in developing a career as a desktop publisher.

Question 6

Sentences (A) to (F) describe various aspects of Google and its services: (A) But those apps are just a hint of what this Internet behemoth offers. (B) Gmail, Google Maps, and Blogger are used widely. (C) By now, most know that Google is about far m…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests skills in paragraph formation and logical ordering of sentences. Six fragments about Google, its search engine, and various applications must be arranged into a coherent paragraph. A good paragraph moves smoothly from general statements to specific examples and finally to a purpose statement that leads into a list or explanation. We must therefore look for a natural starting sentence and then order the remaining sentences so that pronouns and linking words such as but and those apps have clear references. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence B: Gmail, Google Maps, and Blogger are used widely. Sentence C: By now, most know that Google is about far more than search. Sentence D: Under the hood of its famous search engine. Sentence A: But those apps are just a hint of what this Internet behemoth offers. Sentence E: Here is a rundown of some useful Google gems that. Sentence F: You may not know about, but probably should. We want a logical flow that introduces Google, mentions known apps, adds contrast, and then previews a list. Concept / Approach: The best way is to identify the most suitable opening line and then follow the references. Sentence C looks like a natural introduction because it mentions Google and contrasts it with the idea of search alone. Sentence B then provides concrete examples of widely used Google services. Sentence A begins with the word but and talks about those apps, which naturally refers back to Gmail, Maps, and Blogger mentioned in B. Sentence D seems to expand on what lies under the hood of the search engine, leading into less visible tools. Finally, sentences E and F together form a complete thought that introduces a rundown of useful Google gems you may not know about. We now compare this logical sequence with the options given. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Choose an introductory sentence. Sentence C, By now, most know that Google is about far more than search, works well because it sets the context and topic.Step 2: After C, it is natural to mention some of the well known Google products, so sentence B, which lists Gmail, Google Maps, and Blogger, fits as the second sentence.Step 3: Sentence A begins with But those apps, so those apps clearly refer back to Gmail, Maps, and Blogger, making A the next logical sentence.Step 4: Sentence D, Under the hood of its famous search engine, naturally follows by hinting that there is more going on inside Google than what appears on the surface.Step 5: Sentences E and F together complete the thought: Here is a rundown of some useful Google gems that you may not know about, but probably should. So E must be followed by F.Step 6: Putting this together gives the order B C D A E F. This matches option C (BCDAEF). Verification / Alternative check: Check that pronouns and connectors have clear referents. In sentence A, those apps clearly refers to the apps just mentioned in B.Check that the phrase this Internet behemoth in A refers smoothly back to Google introduced in C.Confirm that E and F combine to form a grammatically complete sentence that introduces the rundown promised by the paragraph. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (DECBFA) starts with D, which is a fragment and does not introduce Google or the topic clearly. It also places A at the end, which breaks the contrast pattern.Option B (EDCFBA) starts with E, but E is incomplete without F and reads abruptly without context.Option D (DCEBFA) again starts with D and later produces an awkward order where widely used apps are mentioned after the promise of a rundown, which is less smooth. Common Pitfalls: Many learners focus only on apparent sentence pairs like E and F and ignore the importance of reference words like those and this, leading to broken paragraphs.Another pitfall is underestimating the need for a clear introductory statement that names the main topic before examples and contrasts appear. Final Answer: The only sequence that forms a smooth, meaningful paragraph is BCDAEF, which is option C.

Question 7

Some people argue that it is wrong for doctors to lie about their patients illnesses. They point out that doctors are hired professionals, just like mechanics hired to repair a car or carpenters employed to fix a roof, and that we would not tolerate…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a short argument about professional ethics. The passage compares doctors with other hired workers such as mechanics and carpenters. It states that we would not accept being misled about the condition of our car or roof, and then claims that in the same way doctors who lie about illnesses violate a good faith contract. We are asked to identify the main conclusion, that is, the central claim that the author wants us to accept based on the supporting reasons. Given Data / Assumptions: Doctors are hired to do a job for patients, similar to mechanics or carpenters hired to perform specific tasks. We would not tolerate not being told the truth by such workers about the condition of our car or roof. If these workers lied, they would violate a good faith contract with us. Doctors who lie about their patients illnesses similarly violate a good faith contract. The author treats this violation as clearly wrong. Concept / Approach: To find the main conclusion, we look for the statement that the rest of the argument supports and which is not itself used mainly as support for something further. Supporting statements include analogies and general claims about how we treat other workers. The strongest value judgment, clearly wrong, is usually a good candidate for the conclusion. Here the key statement that the author wants us to accept is that it is wrong for doctors to lie about their patients illnesses. The assertion that doctors are just hired workers like mechanics and carpenters is a premise used to set up the analogy, not the final claim. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the last sentence or explicit judgment. The passage ends by saying that doctors who lie about their patients illnesses violate good faith contracts and that this is clearly wrong.Step 2: Notice that the earlier sentences are building a comparison between doctors and other workers to support that final moral judgment.Step 3: Mark which statement has normative content, that is, expresses what is right or wrong, rather than just describing how things are. That statement is that it is wrong for doctors to lie about their patients illnesses.Step 4: Recognise that the classification of doctors as hired workers like mechanics and carpenters is used as a premise to argue that the same honesty standards should apply.Step 5: Conclude that the main conclusion is option B, while option A is only a supporting premise. Verification / Alternative check: Test whether the argument would still make sense if we removed statement A. Without the claim that doctors are hired workers like mechanics, the analogy would be weaker, but the author could still argue that it is wrong for doctors to lie. This shows A is a supporting reason, not the central point.On the other hand, if we remove the claim that it is wrong for doctors to lie, there is no clear purpose to discussing mechanics, carpenters, and good faith contracts. This shows that B is the main conclusion.Check the answer options and see that only option B states the moral judgment the entire argument is aiming at. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is a premise used to support the conclusion through analogy. It explains why similar expectations of truth telling should apply, but it is not the final point.Option C is wrong because only B is the argument s conclusion; A does not function as a second conclusion.Option D is wrong because B clearly matches the central claim that the author wants us to accept. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes mistake a strong sounding premise, especially one with a clear example, for the main conclusion. The conclusion is usually the statement that expresses the writer s main opinion or prescription.Another pitfall is to overlook the final moral judgment in favour of earlier descriptive sentences. It is always helpful to ask what the author is trying to convince the reader to believe or do. Final Answer: Therefore, the central claim supported by the rest of the argument is that it is wrong for doctors to lie about their patients illnesses.

Question 8

In a group of six women, there are four dancers, four vocal musicians, one actress, and three violinists. Girija and Vanaja are violinists, while Jalaja and Shailaja do not know how to play the violin. Shailaja and Tanuja are dancers. Jalaja, Vanaja…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This logical reasoning puzzle is based on classification and deduction from multiple overlapping sets. We have six women and information about who is a dancer, vocal musician, violinist, and actress. The task is to combine all the given constraints and identify which person must certainly be both a dancer and a violinist. Such questions train the ability to track conditions and use elimination to reach a unique conclusion. Given Data / Assumptions: There are six women: Girija, Vanaja, Jalaja, Shailaja, Tanuja, and Pooja. Total roles: four dancers, four vocal musicians, one actress, and three violinists. Girija and Vanaja are violinists. Jalaja and Shailaja do not play the violin. Shailaja and Tanuja are dancers. Jalaja, Vanaja, Shailaja, and Tanuja are all vocal musicians. Exactly two of these four vocal musicians (Jalaja, Vanaja, Shailaja, and Tanuja) are violinists. Pooja is the only actress. Concept / Approach: The key idea is to combine set membership information. We know how many people belong to each skill group overall, and we also know specific inclusions and exclusions. We must first identify all violinists, then intersect that set with the set of dancers. Any person who is certainly in both sets, regardless of other possibilities, is the required answer. Consistency with the total counts is also important, so we use the totals to confirm that no alternative assignment is possible. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From the statement, Girija (G) and Vanaja (V) are violinists. So we already have two violinists: G and V.Step 2: Jalaja (J) and Shailaja (S) do not know how to play the violin, so they cannot be violinists.Step 3: The four vocal musicians are J, V, S, and Tanuja (T). Exactly two of these four are violinists.Step 4: Among these four vocal musicians, V is already known to be a violinist. Therefore, exactly one more among J, S, and T must be a violinist.Step 5: However, J and S are explicitly stated not to play the violin. Hence they cannot be the second violinist among this group.Step 6: Therefore, Tanuja must be the second violinist among the vocal musicians. So the three violinists overall are Girija, Vanaja, and Tanuja.Step 7: Shailaja and Tanuja are dancers. Therefore, Tanuja is both a dancer and a violinist. Shailaja is a dancer but not a violinist. Girija and Vanaja are violinists but are not forced by the statements to be dancers.Step 8: Hence the only woman who is certainly both a dancer and a violinist is Tanuja. Verification / Alternative check: Check the total counts. There are three violinists: G, V, and T. This matches the requirement of three violinists. Vocal musicians are J, V, S, and T, and among them, exactly two (V and T) are violinists, which also matches the given condition. There are four dancers, and we already know S and T are dancers, while the remaining two dancers can be selected from G, V, J, and P without affecting the conclusion about who must be both dancer and violinist. Every condition can be satisfied with Tanuja as a dancer and violinist, and no other person is forced into that combination by the data. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Shailaja is definitely a dancer and a vocal musician, but she does not play the violin. Vanaja is definitely a violinist and a vocal musician, but she is not required to be a dancer by any statement. Girija is a violinist, but again there is no compulsion that she is a dancer. Pooja is identified as the actress. She need not be a violinist or a dancer based on the given information. Common Pitfalls: Assuming that every violinist is also a dancer simply because there are many dancers and violinists. Overlooking the restriction that Jalaja and Shailaja do not play the violin and mistakenly assigning them as violinists. Ignoring the condition that exactly two among the four vocal musicians are violinists, which forces Tanuja to be a violinist. Final Answer: The woman who is both a dancer and a violinist is Tanuja.

Question 9

Economists know that healthy people pose less of an economic burden on society than unhealthy people. Therefore every dollar that our state government spends on prenatal care for undocumented immigrants will save the state taxpayers three dollars. W…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This critical reasoning problem explores cause and effect in the context of public health economics. The argument claims that spending one dollar on prenatal care for undocumented immigrants saves three dollars for taxpayers, and that this should not be surprising since healthy people are less of an economic burden than unhealthy people. The question asks which additional fact best explains why this particular statistic about prenatal care savings is predictable. Given Data / Assumptions: Healthy people cost society less than unhealthy people. The state spends money on prenatal care for undocumented immigrants. Every dollar spent on such prenatal care saves three dollars for state taxpayers. We need a fact that connects prenatal care specifically to lower health costs in a clear way. Concept / Approach: The conclusion is that the savings are not surprising. To support this, we should look for a statement that shows why prenatal care strongly improves health outcomes and reduces costly complications. A good supporting option will explicitly link lack of prenatal care with higher rates of health problems for mother and child, which in turn implies higher medical and social costs. Options that only describe who pays, or that do not bear directly on health outcomes, will be weaker explanations of the three-to-one savings ratio. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The main reasoning is: healthier individuals cost less, prenatal care increases health, therefore prenatal care spending saves money.Step 2: Option A states that taxpayers pay for prenatal care for all immigrants. This describes who pays but does not explain why each dollar spent generates three dollars in savings.Step 3: Option B states that pregnant women who do not receive prenatal care are much more likely to experience serious health problems than other pregnant women.Step 4: If women without prenatal care have many more complications, then the medical costs for them and their babies will be significantly higher. Providing prenatal care reduces complications and therefore reduces these high costs.Step 5: This directly explains why each dollar spent up front on prenatal care can save several dollars later in avoided emergency care, high risk births, and long term health problems.Step 6: Option C combines A and B, but the strength comes from B. Adding A does not improve the explanation of the savings ratio.Step 7: Option D says that none of the options explains the statistics, which is incorrect because B clearly does.Step 8: Option E mentions that prenatal care is more expensive than other routine services. That may make the three-to-one savings ratio even more striking, but it does not directly explain why the savings occur. Verification / Alternative check: Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A concerns who pays but does not address the health impact of prenatal care. Option C includes A but gains no extra explanatory force beyond what B already provides. Option D is incorrect because at least one option, namely B, does explain the statistic well. Option E focuses on relative cost of services and does not show why prenatal care in particular leads to large savings. Common Pitfalls: Confusing information about who pays for care with information about whether the care actually reduces future costs. Being distracted by cost comparisons in option E instead of looking for evidence about health outcomes. Choosing option C simply because it combines two statements rather than evaluating the strength of each component. Final Answer: The claim is best explained by the fact that pregnant women who do not receive prenatal care are much more likely to experience serious health problems than other pregnant women.

Question 10

No national productivity measures are available for underground industries that may exist but remain unreported. However, at least some industries that are run entirely by self employed industrialists are included in national productivity measures. …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This critical reasoning question involves drawing a logically valid conclusion from two factual statements. We are told how underground industries relate to national productivity measures and we are told that some industries run entirely by self employed industrialists are included in those measures. The goal is to identify the one conclusion that must be true on the basis of the given information, without adding extra assumptions. Given Data / Assumptions: No national productivity measures are available for underground industries that remain unreported. Therefore, underground industries are not included in national productivity measures. At least some industries that are run entirely by self employed industrialists are included in national productivity measures. We must find a conclusion that follows with certainty from these premises. Concept / Approach: The key logical structure is about inclusion and exclusion from national productivity measures. The first statement tells us that if an industry is underground, then it is not measured. The second statement tells us that at least one industry run entirely by self employed industrialists is measured. From this, we can infer something about whether such industries are underground or not. The correct conclusion will follow directly from combining these two statements. Conclusions that speculate about all such industries, or about non self employed sectors, go beyond the information given. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From the first statement, if an industry is underground, it does not appear in national productivity measures.Step 2: The contrapositive is that if an industry appears in national productivity measures, then it is not underground.Step 3: The second statement says that at least some industries run entirely by self employed industrialists are included in national productivity measures.Step 4: Applying the contrapositive, any industry that is included in national productivity measures cannot be an underground industry.Step 5: Therefore, at least some industries run entirely by self employed industrialists are not underground industries, because at least one such industry is measured.Step 6: This matches option D exactly. Verification / Alternative check: Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A goes beyond the premises by asserting the existence of underground self employed industries. Option B incorrectly claims that none of the self employed industries are underground, which is stronger than what we can infer. Option C asserts the existence of other underground industries but the premises do not require any specific examples. Option E makes an absolute claim about all underground industries that is unsupported. Common Pitfalls: Confusing what might be true with what must be true based on the premises. Misreading the structure of the first statement and failing to use the contrapositive. Assuming additional facts about underground industries or self employed industries that are not stated. Final Answer: The valid conclusion is that there are at least some industries run entirely by self employed industrialists that are not underground industries.

Question 11

Four friends Raghu, Rajesh, Ramesh, and Ravi completed their graduation in different numbers of years. The one who took the maximum time took eight years to complete graduation, and the one who took the least time took only three years. Ravi took mo…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a classic ordering and ranking puzzle involving four friends and the time each took to complete graduation. We know the extreme values (minimum and maximum years) and some relational information about who took more or less time than whom. The goal is to use these clues to determine which friend took the maximum number of years to complete graduation. Given Data / Assumptions: Friends: Raghu, Rajesh, Ramesh, and Ravi. All four took different numbers of years to complete graduation. The maximum time taken by any one of them is 8 years. The minimum time taken is 3 years. Ravi took more time only than Raghu and completed graduation in 5 years. Ramesh did not take longer time than Rajesh (so Ramesh took less than or equal to Rajesh). Concept / Approach: We need to assign unique times to each person from a small discrete set. The specific times we know are 3 years minimum, 8 years maximum, and 5 years for Ravi. With the condition that all times are different, and Ravi took more time only than Raghu, we can place Ravi and Raghu in the order. Then we must use the relation between Ramesh and Rajesh to decide who must have taken 8 years. Logical ordering and elimination will lead to the answer. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Ravi took more time only than Raghu and completed in 5 years. The phrase more time only than Raghu means that among the four, Ravi took more time than exactly one person, Raghu, and less time than the other two.Step 2: Therefore, Raghu must have taken less time than 5 years. Since the minimum time is 3 years, and all times are distinct, Raghu must have taken 3 years.Step 3: We now know two of the times: Raghu = 3 years (minimum), Ravi = 5 years. The remaining two times for Rajesh and Ramesh must be greater than 5 years, with one of them equal to the maximum 8 years.Step 4: The statement that Ramesh did not take longer time than Rajesh means Ramesh took less than or equal to the time taken by Rajesh.Step 5: Since all times are distinct, less than or equal to here simplifies to strictly less than. So Ramesh took fewer years than Rajesh.Step 6: Because Rajesh took more time than Ramesh, and one of them must have taken the maximum of 8 years, it must be Rajesh who took 8 years.Step 7: The remaining time value between 5 and 8 (for example 6 or 7 years) would then belong to Ramesh, but the exact number is not needed for the question. Verification / Alternative check: Why Other Options Are Wrong: Ramesh cannot have taken the maximum time because he took fewer years than Rajesh. Raghu took the minimum time, 3 years, so he cannot be the slowest. Ravi took only 5 years and is faster than both Ramesh and Rajesh. None of these is incorrect because Rajesh fits all the conditions to be the one who took 8 years. Common Pitfalls: Misreading the phrase more time only than Raghu and thinking Ravi is the slowest, which contradicts the data. Ignoring that all four time durations are distinct, which removes the possibility of ties. Confusing not longer than with strictly shorter in a context where all values must be different. Final Answer: The person who took the most years to complete graduation is Rajesh.

Question 12

Rearrange the following five sentences in proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph, and then answer the question. 1. After examining him, the doctor smiled mischievously at Mintu and took out a syringe. 2. Thinking that he was really sick, his…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is a sentence rearrangement problem where five sentences describe a short story about Mintu, a boy who wants to avoid going to school. The goal is to arrange the sentences in a logical order so that they form a coherent and meaningful paragraph. This tests understanding of narrative flow, cause and effect, and the typical structure of short anecdotes. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence 3: That day, Mintu wanted to take a day off from school. Sentence 5: Therefore, he pretended to be sick and remained in bed. Sentence 2: Thinking that he was really sick, his father summoned the family doctor. Sentence 1: After examining him, the doctor smiled mischievously and took out a syringe. Sentence 4: Immediately, Mintu jumped up from his bed and swore that he was fine. We need to order these sentences to form a smooth narrative. Concept / Approach: A short story usually starts with a situation or motive, then describes an action, followed by consequences, and finally a climax or punch line. Here, the motive is Mintu wanting a day off, the action is pretending to be sick, the consequence is the father calling the doctor, and the climax is the doctor taking out a syringe, which scares Mintu into admitting he is fine. By following natural cause and effect, we can identify the correct order. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The story must begin with the reason for the events. Sentence 3 clearly sets the context: That day, Mintu wanted to take a day off from school. So 3 comes first.Step 2: Because he wanted a day off, he needed an excuse. Sentence 5 states Therefore, he pretended to be sick and remained in bed. The word Therefore directly links his desire (3) to his action (5). So the order begins 3 5.Step 3: After Mintu pretends to be sick, his father reacts. Sentence 2 says Thinking that he was really sick, his father summoned the family doctor. This is a natural result of sentence 5. So we next have 2.Step 4: Once the doctor arrives, he examines Mintu. Sentence 1 describes After examining him, the doctor smiled mischievously and took out a syringe. This must happen after sentence 2. So the next in order is 1.Step 5: Finally, the syringe frightens Mintu, and he reacts quickly. Sentence 4 says Immediately, Mintu jumped up from his bed and swore that he was fine. This is clearly the humorous end of the story and follows the doctor taking out the syringe. So 4 is last.Step 6: Combining all, the correct order is 3 5 2 1 4. Verification / Alternative check: Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options that start with sentence 5 or 4 skip the initial motivation and sound abrupt. Any option that places sentence 4 before sentence 1 removes the reason for Mintu suddenly jumping out of bed. Sequences that put sentence 2 before 5 would require the father to think Mintu is sick even before he pretends to be sick, which is illogical. Common Pitfalls: Focusing only on the numbers without reading the meaning of each sentence carefully. Ignoring linking words such as Therefore and Immediately, which strongly indicate the direction of cause and effect. Placing the humorous punch line too early, which results in a story that does not build properly. Final Answer: The correct order of the sentences is 3 5 2 1 4.

Question 13

According to the National Agricultural Aviation Society (NAAS), without the use of crop protection products to control insects, weeds, and diseases, crop yields per acre will drop by more than 50 percent. The first aerial application of insecticide …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This critical reasoning question focuses on understanding conditional statements and their logical consequences. The passage tells us what happens to crop yields without crop protection products and describes the capabilities of aerial applicator aircraft in the modern economy. The task is to identify which option cannot be validly concluded from the given information. This requires careful attention to the direction of implication and to the difference between a statement and its converse or inverse. Given Data / Assumptions: According to the NAAS, without the use of crop protection products to control insects, weeds, and diseases, crop yields per acre will drop by more than 50 percent. The first aerial application of insecticide in 1921 was successful. In today's economy, all aircraft that are classified as aerial applicators do more than just apply insecticide; they also spread seed and apply fertilizer. We must find which option is not a valid logical consequence of these statements. Concept / Approach: The key logical structure from the NAAS statement is: if crop protection products are not used, then yields drop by more than 50 percent. Symbolically, Not used leads to drop greater than 50 percent. The valid contrapositive is that if yields do not drop by more than 50 percent, then crop protection products have been used. However, the converse, which would say that if yields drop by more than 50 percent then products were not used, does not necessarily follow. For aerial applicators, the statement is that if an aircraft is an aerial applicator, then it can perform several tasks including applying fertilizer. The contrapositive of that statement is also valid. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From the NAAS statement, we have: if no crop protection products are used, then yields drop by more than 50 percent.Step 2: The contrapositive is: if yields do not drop by more than 50 percent, then crop protection products have been used. This contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original and is valid.Step 3: Option B essentially states that according to the NAAS, if crop yields per acre never drop by more than 50 percent, then crop protection products have been used. This matches the contrapositive and thus can be validly concluded.Step 4: Option D states that according to the NAAS, if crop yields per acre drop by more than 50 percent, then crop protection products have not been used. This is the converse of the original conditional and is not guaranteed to be true. Other factors could cause yields to drop even when products are used.Step 5: For aerial applicators, the passage states that in today's economy, all aircraft classified as aerial applicators also spread seed and apply fertilizer. Thus, if an aircraft is an aerial applicator, then it can spread seed and apply fertilizer.Step 6: Option A matches this structure and is a direct restatement, so it is valid. Option C is the contrapositive of that structure, also valid: if an aircraft cannot apply fertilizer, then it is not an aerial applicator.Step 7: Option E follows naturally from the definition: passenger only aircraft do not perform agricultural application tasks and so cannot be aerial applicators. This is consistent and can be accepted as a reasonable consequence.Step 8: Therefore, the only option that cannot be validly concluded is option D, which incorrectly assumes the converse of the NAAS conditional. Verification / Alternative check: Why Other Options Are Wrong (as answers to the question): Option A restates the given description of modern aerial applicators and is consistent with the passage. Option B reflects the contrapositive of the NAAS conditional and is a valid logical consequence. Option C expresses the contrapositive of the aerial applicator description and is valid. Option E is consistent with the idea that only aircraft performing agricultural application tasks are aerial applicators, so it does not contradict the passage. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a conditional statement with its converse. The fact that no products implies large yield loss does not mean that large yield loss implies no products. Ignoring the contrapositive, which is always logically equivalent to the original conditional. Focusing only on the wording and not on the logical structure of the statements. Final Answer: The statement that cannot be validly concluded is: According to the NAAS, if crop yields per acre drop by more than 50 percent, then crop protection products have not been used to control insects, weeds, and diseases.

Question 14

Lou observes that if flight 409 is canceled, then the manager could not possibly arrive in time for the meeting. But the flight was not canceled. Therefore, Lou concludes, the manager will certainly be on time. Evelyn replies that even if Lou's prem…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This logical reasoning question examines two arguments about whether a manager will arrive on time. Lou makes an inference from a conditional statement about flight cancellation, and Evelyn criticizes his reasoning but then makes her own unsupported conclusion. The task is to decide what we can say about both arguments based purely on logic, without assuming any additional facts about the manager or the flight. Given Data / Assumptions: Lou states: If flight 409 is canceled, then the manager cannot arrive in time. Lou notes that flight 409 was not canceled. From this, Lou concludes that the manager will certainly be on time. Evelyn says that even if Lou's premises are true, his argument is fallacious. Evelyn then concludes that the manager will not arrive on time. We must evaluate whose reasoning about the logic is correct and whether their conclusions are warranted. Concept / Approach: Lou is using a conditional of the form: If A, then B (if flight canceled, then manager late). He observes not A (flight not canceled) and concludes B is false (manager on time). This is a classic invalid pattern called denying the antecedent: from If A then B and not A, one cannot deduce anything about B. Evelyn correctly identifies his argument as fallacious. However, Evelyn then claims the opposite conclusion that the manager will not be on time. She bases this only on the fact that Lou's argument is fallacious, which does not logically establish the opposite of his conclusion. A fallacious argument does not imply that its conclusion is false; it only implies that the conclusion is not supported by that argument. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Represent Lou's reasoning: If flight 409 is canceled (A), then the manager cannot arrive on time (not T). The flight was not canceled (not A). Lou concludes that the manager will be on time (T).Step 2: The pattern is: If A then not T. Not A. Therefore T. This is logically invalid. From not A, we cannot infer T or not T. The manager might or might not be on time for other reasons.Step 3: Therefore Evelyn is correct when she says that Lou's argument is fallacious.Step 4: Evelyn then concludes that the manager will not arrive on time. However, this conclusion does not follow from showing that Lou's reasoning is invalid. Demonstrating that an argument is fallacious does not establish the negation of its conclusion.Step 5: The truth of the manager's arrival time remains undetermined by the given information. The manager could still be on time or late, and neither Lou nor Evelyn has proved either outcome.Step 6: The strongest correct statement is therefore that Evelyn is correct about Lou's argument being fallacious, but her own conclusion is unwarranted. Verification / Alternative check: Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A says Evelyn is mistaken about the fallacy in Lou's argument, which is incorrect because the pattern is indeed invalid. Option C claims both A and B are correct, which cannot be true since A is incorrect. Option D claims that none of the statements is correct, but B is correct. Option E incorrectly states that Lou's argument is valid, which conflicts with the logical analysis. Common Pitfalls: Assuming that if an argument is fallacious, its conclusion must be false. Failing to recognize the invalid pattern of denying the antecedent. Confusing logical validity (structure) with the actual truth of a conclusion. Final Answer: The strongest correct statement is that Evelyn is right about Lou's argument being fallacious, but her own conclusion is unwarranted.

Question 15

Lycopene, glutathione, and glutamine are powerful antioxidants that neutralize free radicals produced in the body as a result of routine bodily processes. An excess of these free radicals causes rapid aging because they accelerate the rate of cellul…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This argument claims that daily antioxidant supplementation is necessary to slow aging. The reasoning links free radicals to cellular damage and aging, then asserts that antioxidants that neutralize these free radicals must be taken as supplements. The question asks which additional fact most seriously undermines this line of reasoning. To weaken the argument, we should look for information that either breaks the link between free radicals and aging or shows that supplements are not necessary because another factor already neutralizes these free radicals effectively. Given Data / Assumptions: Lycopene, glutathione, and glutamine are powerful antioxidants. These antioxidants neutralize free radicals produced by routine bodily processes. An excess of free radicals leads to rapid aging by accelerating cellular damage. Aging is described as the result of this damage. Conclusion: To slow down aging it is necessary to supplement your diet daily with these antioxidants. Concept / Approach: The conclusion has two key parts: first, that free radicals cause aging; second, that daily dietary supplements of specific antioxidants are necessary to reduce these free radicals. To undermine the argument, we should show that supplementation is not actually necessary. A strong weakening statement will describe an alternative mechanism that already neutralizes or controls free radicals adequately, making extra supplements redundant. Statements about people's attitudes toward aging or about minor details of diet are less relevant to the logical core of the argument. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Option A says that most persons are not concerned with aging effects until it is too late to act. This may describe human behavior but does not address whether antioxidants are necessary or effective in slowing aging.Step 2: Option B states that exercise associated with normal daily activities effectively neutralizes and dissipates the free radicals produced by routine bodily processes.Step 3: If normal exercise already neutralizes these free radicals effectively, then the body does not have an excess of free radicals simply from routine processes.Step 4: In that case, daily antioxidant supplementation is not necessary to prevent free radical overload, because exercise is already performing the neutralizing role.Step 5: This directly attacks the argument's claim that supplementation is necessary. If the free radical problem is already handled by exercise, the conclusion about the need for daily supplements is undermined.Step 6: Option C combines A and B, but the weakening force comes entirely from B. A alone does not damage the logic.Step 7: Option E notes that many individuals consume antioxidants in normal food. This may suggest that some people do not need extra supplements, but it does not show that supplementation is unnecessary for everyone, because the quantities might be insufficient.Step 8: Therefore, the statement that most seriously undermines the argument is option B. Verification / Alternative check: Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A speaks about when people become concerned with aging and does not affect whether supplements are logically required to slow aging. Option C includes A but adds no extra logical weakness beyond B alone. Option D is incorrect because at least one option, B, clearly weakens the argument. Option E suggests people already consume some antioxidants, but this might support supplementation if dietary amounts are low. It does not directly show that supplements are unnecessary. Common Pitfalls: Confusing emotional or behavioral statements about aging with logical evidence regarding biochemical processes. Overvaluing partial information about diet without checking whether it really challenges the necessity claim. Failing to see that an alternative natural mechanism for neutralizing free radicals directly undercuts the need for additional supplementation. Final Answer: The argument is most seriously undermined by the fact that exercise associated with normal daily activities effectively neutralizes and dissipates the free radicals produced by routine bodily processes.

Question 16

Beautiful beaches attract people, there is no doubt about it. Just look at this city's beautiful beaches, which are among the most overcrowded beaches in the state. Which of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to the…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question asks you to match the pattern of reasoning used in a short argument about beautiful beaches and overcrowding. The original argument links a property of a place, beauty, to a result, overcrowding, and then uses observation as evidence for that causal explanation. You must choose the option whose logical structure most closely parallels this pattern, rather than focusing only on the topic or subject matter. Given Data / Assumptions (Original Argument): Claim: Beautiful beaches attract people. Evidence: This city has beautiful beaches, and they are among the most overcrowded in the state. Reasoning: The observed overcrowding at beautiful beaches supports the claim that beauty attracts people. Concept / Approach: The reasoning pattern is: a certain condition or environmental feature (beauty of beaches) is connected with an effect (overcrowding). An example is given where that feature is present and the effect is observed, and this is used to support the general claim. We are looking for another argument where a general claim about a cause and an effect is supported by an example that exhibits the same cause and the same sort of effect, especially in the context of an environment in which something thrives or is attracted. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine option B: During warm weather my dog suffers from fleas far more than during cooler weather. Therefore, fleas must thrive in a warm environment.Step 2: Here, the argument observes that in warm conditions, there are more fleas on the dog, and from this observation it concludes that fleas thrive in warmth.Step 3: This matches the structure of the original: in the presence of a certain condition (warm weather / beautiful beaches), there is an increased effect (more fleas / more people), so the argument concludes that this condition favors or attracts that effect (fleas thrive in warmth / people are attracted to beauty).Step 4: Now examine option A: Moose and bears usually appear at the same drinking hole at the same time. Therefore, moose and bears must grow thirsty at the same time.Step 5: This argument goes from observing two animals arriving together to inferring that they experience thirst at the same time. This pattern explains synchronicity in behavior, not an environment attracting a group, and so is less parallel to the original argument.Step 6: Option E reverses the direction: it says crowded malls attract sellers, based on the fact that busy malls have more shops. This is somewhat similar but focuses on a different structure: the crowd attracts sellers, not an environment attracting a crowd.Step 7: Among all options, B best captures the idea of an environmental condition causing higher presence of something (fleas) and using that observation as evidence of the causal relation. Verification / Alternative check: Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A deals with two animals having similar behavior and infers they share an internal state, thirst. It does not involve an environment that attracts them or causes an increase. Option C says both A and B are similar, but only B clearly matches the environmental cause to increased presence structure. Option D is incorrect because at least one option, B, does match the reasoning pattern. Option E shifts to a different pattern, suggesting that crowding attracts sellers, which reverses some relationships compared with the original argument. Common Pitfalls: Focusing on surface details like animals versus people instead of looking at the logical skeleton of the argument. Thinking that any argument with cause and effect is similar, without checking whether the roles of cause and effect match closely. Ignoring how the example in each option functions as evidence for a broader generalization. Final Answer: The argument that most closely matches the reasoning pattern is: During warm weather my dog suffers from fleas far more than during cooler weather. Therefore, fleas must thrive in a warm environment.

Question 17

Six persons A, B, C, D, E, and F live on six different floors of the same building. The bottommost floor is the first, the floor above it is the second, and so on up to the sixth floor at the top. A lives on an odd numbered floor. C lives immediatel…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a floor arrangement puzzle involving six people and six floors. Several relational clues are given about who lives immediately above, immediately below, or with a fixed gap in between floors. The task is to determine exactly how many people live below E once all constraints are satisfied. Such puzzles test systematic reasoning and careful handling of multiple interdependent conditions. Given Data / Assumptions: The building has six floors, numbered 1 (bottom) to 6 (top). Persons: A, B, C, D, E, F. Each occupies a distinct floor. A lives on an odd numbered floor. C lives immediately below A. There is a gap of exactly two floors between the floors of C and F, so the difference in floor numbers is 3. D lives immediately above F. B lives above E. E lives below F. Concept / Approach: The best way is to use the constraints that involve immediate above and below relations and fixed gaps, because they strongly restrict positions. A and C are consecutive, and F and D are consecutive. There is also a three floor separation between C and F. Starting with the possible positions for A and C, we can deduce F and D, then place E and B while respecting the above and below conditions. Once a valid arrangement is found, we can answer the question about how many persons live below E. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: A lives on an odd floor, so A can be on floor 1, 3, or 5.Step 2: C lives immediately below A. Therefore, if A is on floor 1, C would be on floor 0, which is impossible. So A cannot be on floor 1.Step 3: If A is on floor 3, then C is on floor 2. If A is on floor 5, then C is on floor 4.Step 4: There is a gap of exactly two floors between C and F, so the difference between their floor numbers is 3. Consider case 1: C on floor 2 (so A on floor 3). Then F must be on floor 5 (since 2 + 3 = 5 is valid, while 2 − 3 is not).Step 5: D lives immediately above F, so if F is on floor 5, D must be on floor 6.Step 6: Now we have A on 3, C on 2, F on 5, and D on 6. The remaining floors 1 and 4 must be occupied by B and E, subject to B living above E and E living below F.Step 7: Since F is on floor 5, E must be on a floor below 5. Among the remaining floors 1 and 4, both are below 5.Step 8: B must be above E. If we place E on floor 1, B can then be on floor 4. This satisfies B above E and E below F. If we tried E on floor 4, B would need to be on a floor higher than 4, but floors 5 and 6 are already occupied by F and D, so that is impossible.Step 9: Therefore, E is on floor 1 and B is on floor 4 in this valid arrangement.Step 10: Now check the alternative case 2 where A is on floor 5 and C on floor 4. Then the floor of F would need to be 1 (since 4 − 3 = 1), but then E must be below F, which is impossible because there is no floor below 1. Hence case 2 is invalid. Verification / Alternative check: Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B (1 person below E), C (2 persons), D (3 persons), and E (4 persons) all require E to be on a higher floor. This contradicts the unique valid arrangement in which E is on the first floor. Any arrangement putting E above floor 1 either violates B above E or E below F, or clashes with the fixed positions of A, C, F, and D. Common Pitfalls: Not checking all possible positions for A and thereby missing that A cannot be on the first floor. Forgetting that the floor gap condition between C and F is three floors, not two floors between them in the sense of only two people between. Trying to place E on floor 4 without noticing that there is no available floor above 4 left for B. Final Answer: The number of persons living below E is 0.

Question 18

The government is set to launch a major initiative to ward off cybercrime through its Rs 1,000 crore National Cyber Coordination Centre project, which is slated to begin operations by the end of this month. According to officials, the Centre is mean…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The passage describes a national level cyber security project, the National Cyber Coordination Centre, whose purpose is to monitor cyber traffic and prevent large scale cyber attacks. The question asks which statement most strongly supports the argument for establishing such a centre. To support the argument, an option should explain how the Centre will effectively achieve its goals or why it is necessary, rather than just mentioning related background information. Given Data / Assumptions: The project has a large budget, indicating a significant effort. The Centre is meant to monitor cyber traffic and detect potential large scale cyber attacks. It will begin with a limited number of Internet Service Providers and data centers. We need a statement that strengthens the claim that this Centre will help ward off cybercrime and cyber attacks. Concept / Approach: A strong supporting statement should directly show that the Centre has capabilities or features that are effective against cyber threats. For example, real time monitoring and response, or advanced analysis of traffic patterns, would show that it can detect and prevent attacks. Statements that simply note that cybercrime has increased or that the government is taking measures describe context but do not directly support the effectiveness of this specific project. Likewise, statements about private companies monitoring their own networks do not necessarily support a national coordination centre. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine option C: The Centre will monitor the flow of cyber traffic, analyze upcoming attacks, and take preventive action in real time.Step 2: This option directly connects the Centre's activities with the goal of warding off cybercrime. Real time analysis and preventive action are exactly the capabilities that justify creating such a national facility.Step 3: Option A mentions that the government is fast tracking cyber security efforts due to an increase in digital transactions. This explains a motivation but does not show that the Centre will actually work as described.Step 4: Option B refers to past cyber attacks and other measures taken. Again, this is background information and does not specifically support the effectiveness of this particular Centre.Step 5: Option E states that private companies already monitor their own networks. This might even suggest that a national centre is less necessary, so it does not strongly support the argument.Step 6: Therefore the statement that most strongly supports the argument is option C. Verification / Alternative check: Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A explains urgency but not effectiveness. Option B presents the broader context of cyber attacks and government measures without highlighting the unique contribution of the Centre. Option D claims that none supports the argument, which is incorrect because C clearly does. Option E may even undermine the need for a national centre by implying that private efforts are already in place. Common Pitfalls: Confusing contextual or motivational information with direct support for the specific project. Choosing an option simply because it mentions cyber attacks, without considering whether it proves the Centre will work. Overlooking action focused phrasing such as take action in real time, which directly supports the goal. Final Answer: The argument is most strongly supported by the statement that the Centre will monitor the flow of cyber traffic, analyze upcoming attacks, and take preventive action in real time.

Question 19

Read the following statements and conclusions: Statements: All windows are doors. No door is a wall. Conclusions: 1. No window is a wall. 2. No wall is a door. Which of the conclusions logically follow from the given statements?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a straightforward syllogism question involving three sets: windows, doors and walls. You are given one subset statement and one disjointness statement, then asked which conclusions necessarily follow. Your goal is to reason about set inclusion and exclusion using basic logic. Given Data / Assumptions: • Statement 1: All windows are doors. (Windows ⊆ Doors.) • Statement 2: No door is a wall. (Doors and walls are disjoint sets.) • Conclusion 1: No window is a wall. • Conclusion 2: No wall is a door. Concept / Approach: We use simple set logic. If every window is also a door, and no door belongs to the set of walls, then windows cannot belong to the set of walls either. Additionally, "No door is a wall" is logically equivalent to "No wall is a door", because the lack of overlap is symmetric. We will formalise this reasoning step by step. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Translate the first statement: All windows are doors ⇒ every element of the set Windows is also in the set Doors. Step 2: Translate the second statement: No door is a wall ⇒ the intersection of Doors and Walls is empty; there is no element that is both a door and a wall. Step 3: Test Conclusion 1: "No window is a wall." Since all windows are doors and no door is a wall, if any window were a wall, it would automatically be a door and a wall at the same time, which is forbidden by Statement 2. Hence, no window can be a wall. Conclusion 1 follows. Step 4: Test Conclusion 2: "No wall is a door." The statement "No door is a wall" means there is no object that is both a door and a wall. Because the relation "no A is B" is symmetric, we can also say "no wall is a door." So Conclusion 2 also follows directly. Step 5: Therefore, both conclusions 1 and 2 are correct consequences of the given statements. Verification / Alternative check: Draw three circles representing Windows, Doors and Walls. Place the Windows circle entirely inside the Doors circle, since all windows are doors. Then place the Walls circle completely separate from the Doors circle, since no door is a wall. You will see immediately that the Windows circle does not intersect the Walls circle, and that the Doors and Walls circles do not overlap at all in either direction. This visual check confirms both conclusions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A and Option B each claim that only one conclusion follows, but we have shown that both follow. Option C claims that only one of them can follow, which is untrue because both express the same core disjointness in slightly different language. Option D is therefore the only accurate choice. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes overlook the symmetry of negative categorical statements and treat "No A is B" and "No B is A" as different. Others fail to consider how subset relationships interact with disjointness, forgetting that if a bigger set is disjoint from another, all its subsets are also disjoint from that other set. Final Answer: Both conclusions logically follow, so the correct choice is that both conclusions 1 and 2 follow.

Question 20

Artists are generally whimsical. Some of these artists are frustrated. Frustrated people are prone to become drug addicts. Based on these statements, which of the following conclusions is logically correct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a logical reasoning question about artists, frustration and the risk of drug addiction. You are given three linked statements and must decide which conclusion is logically supported. Such questions test your ability to connect premises carefully without overgeneralising beyond what is actually stated. Given Data / Assumptions: • Statement 1: Artists are generally whimsical. (Most or almost all artists are whimsical in nature.) • Statement 2: Some of these artists are frustrated. (There exists at least a subset of artists who are frustrated.) • Statement 3: Frustrated people are prone to be drug addicts. (Frustration increases the tendency toward drug addiction, but does not guarantee it.) • We interpret "prone to" as increased risk or tendency, not as a certainty that they are drug addicts. Concept / Approach: We must be careful about the difference between "may be", "are", "all" and "some". The statements indicate tendencies and existence of certain groups, not that every member of a group definitely has a specific property. Therefore, any conclusion that turns a tendency into a universal fact is suspect. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From Statement 2, we know that there exists at least one artist who is frustrated. Step 2: From Statement 3, frustrated people are prone to be drug addicts. This implies that frustrated artists have a higher chance of becoming drug addicts than non frustrated people. Step 3: Combining Steps 1 and 2, we can say that some artists belong to a group that is prone to drug addiction. Thus, it is logically valid to say that some artists may be drug addicts. Step 4: Check Option A: "All frustrated people are drug addicts." The premise only says they are prone to be drug addicts, not that every frustrated person definitely becomes one. So Option A is too strong and not supported. Step 5: Check Option B: "Frustrated people are whimsical." We know that some artists are frustrated and artists are generally whimsical, but that does not mean all frustrated people, including those who are not artists, are whimsical. So Option B is not logically guaranteed. Step 6: Check Option C: "All drug addicts are artists." The premises only show that some artists are frustrated and that frustrated people are prone to addiction; they say nothing about drug addicts outside the group of artists. So Option C overgeneralises. Step 7: Option D: "Some artists may be drug addicts." This matches our reasoning in Step 3 and correctly uses the cautious phrase "may be", reflecting a possibility rather than a certainty. Verification / Alternative check: Construct a simple example. Suppose there are 100 artists, of whom 20 are frustrated, and among those 20, some become drug addicts due to their frustration. Then clearly some artists are drug addicts, satisfying Option D. However, it may still be false that all frustrated people are addicts (Option A), that all drug addicts are artists (Option C), or that every frustrated person in the world is whimsical (Option B). Thus only Option D is forced by the premises. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options A, B and C all express universal statements ("all frustrated people", "all drug addicts") that go far beyond what is stated. The premises provide evidence of a subset relationship and risk, not universal equivalence. Therefore, these options misinterpret the logical strength of the given information. Common Pitfalls: Students often turn probabilistic or tendency based language like "prone to" into absolute certainty, which leads to invalid universal conclusions. Another common mistake is assuming that if some members of one group belong to another, then every member of one group must belong to the other. Always pay close attention to words like "some", "all", "generally" and "prone to". Final Answer: The only conclusion that is logically supported is that some artists may be drug addicts.

Statement and Conclusion Questions