Question 1

Statement: A Brahmin priest is expected to be able to recite at least one of the Vedas. Conclusions: I) Any person who can recite the Vedas is a Brahmin. II) Reciting the Vedas is a Brahmin’s obligation.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement prescribes an expectation for Brahmin priests: the ability to recite at least one Veda. We must test two conclusions—one is a converse generalization, the other restates the obligation. Given Data / Assumptions: Expectation: “A Brahmin priest is expected to be able to recite at least one Veda.” No claim equates all Veda-reciters with being Brahmins. Concept / Approach: Conclusion II paraphrases the obligation: for Brahmin priests, reciting (at least one Veda) is expected—this follows. Conclusion I wrongly converts “Brahmin priest → can recite” into “can recite → Brahmin,” which is a logical fallacy (affirming the consequent). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify directionality: the rule applies to Brahmin priests, not all Veda-reciters.2) Conclude II is supported; I is an invalid converse. Verification / Alternative check: Non-Brahmins (scholars) could recite the Vedas; thus I fails. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Accepting I adds a universal identification never made; “neither” ignores the explicit obligation. Common Pitfalls: Confusing an obligation for a group with an identity rule for all who meet the skill. Final Answer: Conclusion II follows.

Question 2

Statement: Sick people need medicine. Conclusions: I) Healthy people do not need medicine. II) People keep medicine in their homes.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The premise is a simple necessity claim about sick people. The conclusions attempt to extend it to healthy individuals and to a behavioral habit (home storage), which the premise does not address. Given Data / Assumptions: Sick → need medicine. No claims about healthy persons or storage habits are provided. Concept / Approach: A statement about one subset (sick people) does not define the complement (healthy people). Some healthy people may take preventive or maintenance medication; some sick people may not store medicine at home. Thus neither I nor II is compelled. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Keep scope narrow: “sick people need medicine.”2) Reject extrapolations to healthy individuals (I) and to storage behaviors (II). Verification / Alternative check: Counterexamples exist for both I and II, showing they are not necessary conclusions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing I or II imports unstated assumptions. Common Pitfalls: Reading necessity for a class as exclusivity for others; inferring habits from needs. Final Answer: Neither conclusion follows.

Question 3

Statement: “The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it.” Conclusions: I) Your life will be dull if you do not face problems. II) To escape from problems, you should always have some solutions with you.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The aphorism recommends solution-seeking as the best escape route. The conclusions attempt to infer effects on “life” and a requirement to “always have” solutions pre-prepared, neither of which is stated. Given Data / Assumptions: Advice: solve problems rather than avoid them. No claim about life being dull without problems. No claim that solutions must always be on hand in advance. Concept / Approach: The statement suggests an approach once a problem exists; it does not prescribe a state of always carrying solutions (II) nor evaluate a life without problems as “dull” (I). Hence neither conclusion is logically necessary. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify scope: operational advice after a problem appears.2) Exclude emotional or universal quantifications not present (I and II). Verification / Alternative check: The advice can be valid regardless of whether life without problems is “dull,” and regardless of pre-existing solutions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option affirming I or II adds content not implied by the aphorism. Common Pitfalls: Over-generalizing motivational maxims into universal psychological or logistical claims. Final Answer: Neither conclusion follows.

Question 4

Statement: India’s economy is dependent mainly on forests. Conclusions: I) Trees should be preserved to improve the Indian economy. II) India wants only maintenance of forests to improve economic conditions.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement claims a primary dependence of India’s economy on forests. From this, we assess what policy-type inferences (preservation or exclusive maintenance) logically follow. Given Data / Assumptions: Main dependence: forests → economy. No assertion that forests are the only driver of the economy, nor that “only maintenance” is desired. Concept / Approach: If forests are a main economic pillar, preserving trees (sustaining the resource base) is a reasonable necessary inference to protect economic health (I). However, II introduces exclusivity (“only maintenance of forests”), which is not in the premise and excludes other economic levers—overreach. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Translate dependence into a preservation necessity.2) Reject “only maintenance” as it is an unstated restriction. Verification / Alternative check: Policy logic: key resources should be maintained; but economies also employ multiple sectors—contradicting II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: II over-specifies; “both” repeats that error; “neither” ignores the implied preservation rationale. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “mainly dependent on X” with “exclusively dependent on X.” Final Answer: Conclusion I follows.

Question 5

Statement: “This world is neither good nor evil; each person manufactures a world for himself.” Conclusions: I) Some people find this world quite good. II) Some people find this world quite bad.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement asserts moral/experiential subjectivity: the world is not inherently good or evil; individuals construe it for themselves. We test whether positive and negative individual appraisals both follow. Given Data / Assumptions: No absolute moral valence is assigned to the world. Perception is person-dependent (“manufactures a world”). Concept / Approach: If valuation is subjective, diverse evaluations—including “good” and “bad”—naturally occur across individuals. Therefore, I and II both follow as existential claims (“some people…”). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) From subjectivity, infer existence of differing views.2) Positive appraisals (I) and negative appraisals (II) are both compatible and likely. Verification / Alternative check: The statement would be incoherent if only one valence were allowed; acknowledging both preserves the claim of subjectivity. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Selecting only one valence or neither contradicts the explicit subjectivity premise. Common Pitfalls: Reading the aphorism as denying all judgments, when it actually relocates judgment to the perceiver. Final Answer: Both conclusions follow.

Question 6

Statement: Company X has a record of camera quality and modernization to help ensure you do not miss a single shot even in bad weather. Conclusions: I) No other company has any recognition in the camera industry. II) Any common person can take good …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The manufacturer’s boasting statement is promotional: quality and modernization reduce missed shots even in adverse conditions. We must test whether exclusivity in industry recognition or universal user success follows from this claim. Given Data / Assumptions: Company X: quality and modernization benefits. No comparative data about other brands’ recognition. No assertion that any novice will take “good photographs” merely by using X. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I (“no other company has recognition”) contradicts market reality and is not stated. Conclusion II imputes outcome guarantees about user skill, which depends on technique, framing, and experience—beyond equipment quality. Hence neither follows. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Separate product claims (fewer missed shots) from industry-wide exclusivity or user-skill guarantees.2) Reject I and II as overreaches. Verification / Alternative check: A superior camera can still yield poor photos if misused; and other firms can also be recognized. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Accepting I or II would import unsupported extremes. Common Pitfalls: Taking ad copy as proof of market exclusivity or as a substitute for skill. Final Answer: Neither conclusion follows.

Question 7

Statement: “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.” Conclusions: I) The writer’s knowledge is very poor. II) The world of knowledge is too vast to be explored by a single person.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The aphorism (Socratic in spirit) is a self-assessment claiming knowledge of one’s ignorance. We must test whether a judgment about the writer’s knowledge level and a general claim about the vastness of knowledge follow strictly from this line. Given Data / Assumptions: Speaker claims to know nothing except that he is ignorant. No general thesis about the total scope of knowledge is directly stated. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I follows: if one claims to know nothing (save awareness of ignorance), it logically characterizes the person’s knowledge as very poor (near nil). Conclusion II would need an added premise—e.g., that the domain is too vast for one mind. The statement does not assert this; it only speaks to the speaker’s state. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Treat the sentence literally as a self-report.2) Infer I as a direct consequence of that self-report.3) Reject II as a universal claim not made in the text. Verification / Alternative check: Even if II is plausible, logical necessity requires it be stated or entailed; it is not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing II adds an unstated generalization; “both” or “neither” misreads the self-assessment. Common Pitfalls: Importing the broader Socratic context about the vastness of knowledge; we must stick to the given sentence. Final Answer: Conclusion I follows.

Question 8

Statement: “Quality has a price tag.” Also, India is allocating considerable funds to education. Conclusions: I) The quality of education in India will improve soon. II) Funding alone can enhance the quality of education.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The pair of statements suggest a general maxim (quality costs) and a policy fact (more funds to education). We must decide whether improved quality necessarily follows and whether funding alone suffices. Given Data / Assumptions: Maxim: quality requires investment. Fact: increased allocation to education. No claims about efficiency, governance, teacher training, or measurement are included. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I (will improve soon) predicts outcomes and timing—neither guaranteed by funding levels alone. Conclusion II asserts sufficiency of funding (“alone”), which is a strong claim contradicted by real-world dependencies (curriculum, pedagogy, accountability, etc.). Hence neither follows with logical necessity. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Distinguish necessary inputs (money) from sufficient conditions (money plus effective use).2) Note the absence of time-bound or sufficiency claims in the premises.3) Therefore, reject I and II. Verification / Alternative check: Waste or misallocation can nullify spending; quality may or may not improve “soon.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: Affirming I or II infers more than is provided; “both” compounds the error. Common Pitfalls: Equating higher budgets with automatic, immediate quality gains. Final Answer: Neither conclusion follows.

Question 9

Statement: The increasing population of our nation will lead to depletion of many essential resources. Conclusions: I) The population of our nation can be controlled. II) The nation will not be able to provide a decent living to its citizens.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The premise warns that rising population leads to depletion of essential resources. The conclusions attempt to infer (a) controllability of population and (b) an inevitable failure to provide decent living. We must check necessity, not plausibility. Given Data / Assumptions: Population increase → resource depletion (causal link asserted). No claim about policy feasibility of population control. No deterministic statement that decent living cannot be achieved. Concept / Approach: From the premise alone, we cannot infer that population can be controlled (I)—that is a policy possibility, not a logical entailment. Nor does resource pressure inevitably mean “no decent living” (II); technology, efficiency, imports, conservation, and substitution could mitigate effects. Hence neither conclusion is necessary. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Keep within scope: only depletion pressure is asserted.2) Recognize that control (I) and inevitability of indecency (II) are additional claims.3) Therefore reject I and II. Verification / Alternative check: Counterexamples exist where nations sustain living standards via productivity and policy even amid population growth. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Affirming I or II adds new assumptions about capability or inevitability. Common Pitfalls: Confusing risk with certainty; importing policy judgments not in the premise. Final Answer: Neither conclusion follows.

Question 10

Statement: “The Government will review the present policy of diesel pricing in view of further spurts in international oil prices.”  Conclusions: I. The Government will increase the price of diesel after the imminent spurt in international oil price…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement merely says the Government will review the current diesel price policy due to possible further spikes in international crude prices. “Review” means reassess or reconsider; it does not, by itself, state the outcome (increase, decrease, freeze, subsidy reallocation, tax tweaking, or formula change). Given Data / Assumptions: Input: An intention to review policy under changing global conditions. No declared decision regarding the direction of price change. No mention of fiscal balance targets or growth trade-offs in the statement. Concept / Approach: In statement–conclusion questions, a conclusion “follows” only if it is a necessary logical consequence of the statement. A plan to review does not imply a predetermined outcome. Either raising, holding, or altering the pricing mechanism is still open. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Test Conclusion I (certain price hike): The statement does not commit to an increase; hence not necessary.2) Test Conclusion II (certain no increase): Likewise, not stated; could be false.3) Therefore, neither Conclusion I nor II necessarily follows from a mere review announcement. Verification / Alternative check: Policy reviews can result in multiple directions (indexation, bands, subsidies, duties). Without explicit direction, asserting a specific outcome is speculative. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • Only I / Only II: Assert a fixed direction not present in the premise.• Either I or II: “Either” suggests exactly one must be true based on the statement, which is not established. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “review” with “increase.” Final Answer: If neither Conclusion I nor II follows.

Question 11

Statement: “People who speak too much against corruption are those who have taken it themselves.”  Conclusions: I. It is easier for those who have taken bribes to speak against corruption. II. People have double standards.  Which conclusion(s) logic…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement alleges that those who vehemently denounce corruption are themselves corrupt. This is essentially a claim of hypocrisy or double standards, not an analysis of ease or difficulty of speaking. Given Data / Assumptions: Allegation: Strong anti-corruption speech often comes from corrupt individuals. No information about why or how easy it is to speak. Concept / Approach: We must pick conclusions that are compelled by the statement alone. “Double standards” is a natural restatement (denouncing behavior one practices). Ease of speaking is not discussed and cannot be inferred. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: Talks about relative ease—this is speculative and not stated.• II: Hypocrisy/double standards logically matches the claim. Verification / Alternative check: If X practices corruption while loudly attacking it, X exhibits double standards; this requires no extra assumptions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • Only I / Both / Either: Each involves I, which is unsupported.• Neither: Incorrect because II does follow. Common Pitfalls: Reading motivations (e.g., guilt, ease) into a statement that only asserts hypocrisy. Final Answer: If only Conclusion II follows.

Question 12

Statement: “Parents are prepared to pay any price for an elite education for their children.”  Conclusions: I. All parents these days are very well off. II. Parents have a strong passion for ensuring their children’s development through good schooli…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement highlights willingness to pay “any price” for elite schooling, signaling intensity of preference, not necessarily universal affluence. Given Data / Assumptions: Strong willingness among parents to secure elite education. No claim that all parents are wealthy. Concept / Approach: We distinguish motivation (value placed on education) from means (being well off). The statement evidences the former but not the latter for the entire parent population. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: “All parents are very well off” overgeneralizes and is not supported.• II: Willingness to pay any price implies passionate commitment to good schooling; II follows. Verification / Alternative check: Many may borrow/sacrifice to pay for schooling; passion does not entail wealth. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • I or Both: Introduce universality/wealth not in the premise.• Neither: Incorrect since II follows. Common Pitfalls: Equating willingness with ability for all. Final Answer: If only Conclusion II follows.

Question 13

Statement: “An interview panel may select a student who has neither the desired level of abilities nor the expected values and assumptions.”  Conclusions: I. Inclusion of experts on an interview panel does not ensure proper selection. II. The interv…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement acknowledges a failure mode: the panel may select an unfit candidate. This shows limitations both in panel composition (experts alone do not guarantee outcomes) and in the procedure itself. Given Data / Assumptions: Interview is the gate for selection. Despite using a panel (possibly with experts), mis-selection is possible. Concept / Approach: From an observed/allowed failure, we infer that the mechanism does not ensure correctness in all cases—hence limitations exist. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: If a panel can select an unsuitable candidate, merely having experts is insufficient to ensure correctness—thus I follows.• II: A procedure that can yield unsuitable selections has limitations—thus II follows. Verification / Alternative check: Even robust processes have error rates; the statement makes that explicit. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • Only I / Only II / Either / Neither: They understate the dual implication of the stated failure. Common Pitfalls: Assuming “experts present” implies infallibility. Final Answer: If both Conclusions I and II follow.

Question 14

Statement: “The greatest need in India today is not for sophisticated gadgets but for programmes that will provide employment to a large number of people.”  Conclusions: I. There is an adequate number of sophisticated gadgets in India. II. Emphasis …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement is a prioritisation claim: employment-generating programmes are more urgently needed than sophisticated gadgets. It does not assert the present stock of gadgets or current procurement emphasis. Given Data / Assumptions: Relative need: programmes > gadgets. No inventory assessment or policy audit provided. Concept / Approach: “X is a greater need than Y” does not imply “we have enough of Y” or “we are currently focusing on Y.” Step-by-Step Solution: • I: Adequacy of gadgets is not addressed—cannot be inferred.• II: Present emphasis (procurement) is not described—cannot be inferred.• Therefore, neither I nor II follows. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They impose inventory or policy claims absent from the premise. Common Pitfalls: Conflating “relative need” with “current sufficiency” or “current focus.” Final Answer: If neither Conclusion I nor II follows.

Question 15

Statement: Company X advertises: “Go ahead and purchase it, if price and quality are your considerations.”  Conclusions: I. The product is good in quality. II. The price of the product is reasonable.  Which conclusion(s) logically follow(s)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Advertisements are persuasive claims from interested parties. A conclusion in this context must be a necessary inference from the statement, not merely what the advertiser says or wants us to believe. Given Data / Assumptions: We know only that the company made the claim. No independent verification of quality or price has been provided. Concept / Approach: From “X claims A and B,” it does not logically follow that A and B are true. Therefore, neither the quality nor the price assertion is established as a conclusion. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: “Product is good in quality” is the advertiser’s claim, not a proven fact.• II: “Price is reasonable” likewise remains unverified.• Hence, neither conclusion follows purely from the existence of the ad copy. Verification / Alternative check: Logical inference demands evidence beyond self-assertion by an interested party. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • Only I / Only II / Both / Either: Each treats the ad’s claim as proof. Common Pitfalls: Taking marketing language as established truth. Final Answer: If neither Conclusion I nor II follows.

Question 16

Statement: “In the case of outstanding candidates, the condition of previous experience of social work may be waived by the Admission Committee for the M.A. (Social Work).”  Conclusions: I. Some students for M.A. (Social Work) will have previous soc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement permits a waiver of prior experience for “outstanding” candidates; it does not assert how many such candidates will apply or be admitted. Given Data / Assumptions: Policy: prior experience may be waived for a subset (outstanding candidates). No data on the composition of the admitted cohort. Concept / Approach: “May be waived” establishes a possibility, not a certainty about actual admissions. Without facts on who gets admitted, we cannot conclude existence of experienced or inexperienced students in the final cohort. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: “Some will have experience” is plausible but not guaranteed by the policy text.• II: “Some will not have experience” is also plausible but not compelled absent evidence that outstanding candidates without experience are admitted.• Therefore, neither conclusion necessarily follows. Verification / Alternative check: Edge cases: All admitted could still have experience (waiver unused), or all could be outstanding (waiver used but all had experience); the policy alone cannot settle it. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They convert a permissive rule (“may waive”) into existence claims. Common Pitfalls: Equating possibility with certainty in syllogisms. Final Answer: If neither Conclusion I nor II follows.

Question 17

Statement: “It is almost impossible to survive and prosper in this world without sacrificing ethics and morality.”  Conclusions: I. The world appreciates some concepts but may not uphold them. II. The concepts of ethics and morality are not practica…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement asserts that survival and prosperity almost require sacrificing ethics and morality. This is a strong claim about practicality in the real world. Given Data / Assumptions: Ethical conduct is claimed to be incompatible with success in most cases. No information on whether “the world appreciates” ethics/morality. Concept / Approach: From the practicability viewpoint, the statement virtually declares ethics/morality to be impracticable for those seeking survival and prosperity—hence II follows. Appreciation (I) is about attitudes/values of “the world,” which are not discussed. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: Introduces the world’s appreciation or lip service—unstated, so it does not follow.• II: Declares impracticability in life for achieving success (as per the statement) and hence follows. Verification / Alternative check: “Almost impossible … without sacrificing” equates to “practically not workable” under ordinary conditions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either include I or exclude II despite the clear practical thrust of the premise. Common Pitfalls: Reading moral commentary (approval/disapproval) into a claim about feasibility. Final Answer: If only Conclusion II follows.

Question 18

Statement: “Any student who does not behave properly while in the school brings a bad name to himself and also to the school.”  Conclusions: I. Such students should be removed from the school. II. Such students should be corrected (reformed) during …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement is descriptive: misbehavior harms reputation. It does not prescribe remedies. Given Data / Assumptions: Premise: Noncompliant behavior causes reputational damage. No indicated policy about removal or corrective action. Concept / Approach: Conclusions proposing actions (expulsion or reform) are normative and require policy premises that are not provided. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: Removal may be one response, but it is not implied by the statement.• II: Correction is desirable, but likewise not implied.• Hence, neither conclusion necessarily follows. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They infer prescriptive policies from a descriptive harm statement. Common Pitfalls: Assuming that identifying harm automatically dictates a particular remedy. Final Answer: If neither Conclusion I nor II follows.

Question 19

Statement: “While presenting a stage show recently, the famous actor declared that he has a practice of either taking full payment or none for his stage shows.”  Conclusions: I. The actor has taken full payment for his recent stage show. II. The act…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The actor’s rule is exclusive: for any given show, he charges either the full fee or nothing. We are asked about the most recent show’s payment status. Given Data / Assumptions: Policy: Either full fee or no fee. No explicit disclosure of which option applied to the specific show. Concept / Approach: Given the disjunction (full OR none) and absence of further detail, the only inference is that exactly one of the two must be true, though we cannot specify which one. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: Could be true but not established.• II: Could be true but not established.• The logically safe evaluation is: one of them follows as a necessary alternative, but we cannot pick which. Hence “either I or II.” Verification / Alternative check: Exclusive rule applies to each show independently; absent show-specific info, the binary remains open. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • Only I / Only II: Assert a side without evidence.• Neither: Contradicts the actor’s stated practice.• Both: Mutually exclusive by the actor’s rule. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “we cannot tell which” with “neither.” Final Answer: If either Conclusion I or II follows.

Question 20

Statement: “Any young man who makes dowry a condition for marriage discredits himself and dishonors womanhood.”  Conclusions: I. Those who take dowry in marriage should be condemned by society. II. Those who do not take dowry in marriage respect wom…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement morally condemns the act of demanding dowry as a condition for marriage, calling it dishonorable. We must test which societal or converse claims necessarily follow. Given Data / Assumptions: Moral judgment against dowry-demanders. No explicit prescription for societal penalties. No converse praise for non-dowry cases is stated. Concept / Approach: From “X is dishonorable,” we do not automatically derive “society should condemn X” (policy) or “not-X implies honor” (converse). Step-by-Step Solution: • I: Condemnation by society is a normative step beyond the stated judgment—unstated.• II: Not demanding dowry might be a necessary condition for respecting womanhood, but the statement does not assert the converse; thus II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Logical inference requires necessity, not preferred ethics. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They import prescriptions or converses. Common Pitfalls: Confusing moral judgment with policy prescription; affirming the converse. Final Answer: If neither Conclusion I nor II follows.

Statement and Conclusion Questions