Question 1

Syllogism with necessary and sufficient conditions  Statements: • A man must be wise to be a good wrangler. • Good wranglers are talkative and boring. Conclusions to evaluate: I. All wise persons are boring. II. All wise persons are good wranglers.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This classic syllogism tests understanding of necessary conditions. The first statement says wisdom is necessary for being a good wrangler. The second says all good wranglers are talkative and boring. We must be careful not to reverse the direction of implication. Given Data / Assumptions: If someone is a good wrangler, then he must be wise. All good wranglers are talkative and boring. Nothing is stated about all wise people in general. Concept / Approach:Translate to conditional form: Good wrangler → Wise; Good wrangler → Boring. From this we cannot infer Wise → Good wrangler or Wise → Boring. Necessary is not the same as sufficient. Avoid the fallacy of affirming the consequent or illicit conversion of a subset relation. Step-by-Step Solution: Conclusion I says all wise persons are boring. This would require Wise → Boring. We only know Good wrangler → Boring and Good wrangler → Wise, which does not yield Wise → Boring. Hence I does not follow.Conclusion II says all wise persons are good wranglers. This would require Wise → Good wrangler, which is the converse of the given first statement and is invalid. Hence II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check:Create a counterexample: many wise people are not wranglers at all, and therefore the property boring from the second statement need not apply to them. The original statements remain true while both conclusions fail, proving neither follows. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II: each commits a direction error. Either or Both: neither conclusion is compelled by the given conditionals. Common Pitfalls:Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions; reversing arrows in conditional logic. Final Answer:Neither I nor II follows

Question 2

Policy review statement — what can be concluded  Statement: • Government spokesman: “The Government will review the present policy of diesel price in view of a further spurt in international oil prices.” Conclusions to evaluate: I. The Government wi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Government policy reviews do not automatically mean a price hike or a price freeze. The spokesman only commits to reconsideration in light of external price movement. We must decide whether a definite outcome can be concluded now. Given Data / Assumptions: International oil prices may rise further. The Government will review current diesel price policy. No decision has been announced yet. Concept / Approach:From a review announcement, the only necessary inference is that authorities will evaluate options. Any firm outcome (increase or no increase) requires additional information, which we do not have. Therefore definite predictions do not follow. Step-by-Step Solution: Conclusion I presumes an increase. This could happen, but it is not necessary. The review could lead to subsidies, staggered revisions, or non price measures.Conclusion II presumes no increase. That is also possible but not guaranteed. Hence neither I nor II follows with certainty. Verification / Alternative check:Consider two scenarios consistent with the statement: scenario A raises prices; scenario B holds prices but changes tax structures. Since both fit, neither definite conclusion follows. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II: each asserts a specific outcome without evidence. Either I or II: expresses an exclusive certainty that one must happen; the review could also produce mixed measures, making the either claim invalid. Both: impossible since they contradict each other. Common Pitfalls:Treating review as a coded message for one fixed action; ignoring alternative instruments in fuel pricing policy. Final Answer:Neither I nor II follows

Question 3

Tourism policy and inference of intent versus outcome  Statement: • The Government of country X has announced several concessions and offered attractive package tours for foreign visitors. Conclusions to evaluate: I. Now, more foreign tourists will …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Policy announcements can reveal intent but do not guarantee outcomes. The Government introduces concessions and attractive packages for foreign visitors. We must discern which conclusion is logically warranted: a statement about future tourist numbers or a statement about the Government’s seriousness. Given Data / Assumptions: New concessions and attractive packages have been announced. No data on market response yet. No historical trend lines are provided. Concept / Approach:From deliberate incentives targeted at tourists, it is reasonable to infer policy intent or seriousness. However, whether tourist arrivals will actually increase depends on many external factors like global economy, travel advisories, connectivity, and marketing, none of which are specified. Step-by-Step Solution: Conclusion I predicts an increase in arrivals. It may occur, but it is not certain solely from the announcement. Therefore I does not strictly follow.Conclusion II infers seriousness in attracting tourists. Creating concessions and packages specifically for foreign visitors demonstrates intent and active effort, so II follows. Verification / Alternative check:Consider a scenario where external shocks reduce travel despite the incentives; arrival numbers may not increase, but the Government’s seriousness remains evident. This confirms II without I. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: treats hoped for effect as guaranteed. Either / Both: both include I, which is not compelled. Neither: underrates the clear signal of intent embedded in the incentives. Common Pitfalls:Confusing policy intention with market outcome; assuming demand response without evidence. Final Answer:Only conclusion II follows

Question 4

Logical Deduction — Statements & Conclusions Statement: "After this amendment to the Constitution, no child below the age of 14 years will be employed to work in any factory or mine, or engaged in any other hazardous employment." Which of the follow…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This critical-reasoning problem tests whether you can distinguish what is explicitly implied by a legal statement from what is merely tempting background inference. The statement announces a constitutional amendment restricting child employment under 14 in hazardous work. Given Data / Assumptions: The amendment applies prospectively, from the time it becomes effective. It specifically refers to hazardous contexts (factory, mine, or similar employment). Two conclusions are under evaluation: (I) such children were employed before; (II) employers are now bound to comply. Concept / Approach:In syllogistic terms, we must see which conclusions are logically compelled. A new constitutional rule creates a binding obligation after enactment. However, a new rule does not by itself prove that the opposite condition existed before. Laws may codify, clarify, or strengthen prior norms. Step-by-Step Solution:Assess Conclusion I: "Before this amendment, children below 14 were employed in factories or mines." The statement does not assert historic facts; it only states what will be prohibited henceforth. Therefore I is not forced.Assess Conclusion II: "The employers must now abide by the amendment." A constitutional amendment is binding law; compliance is obligatory. Therefore II follows. Verification / Alternative check:If laws were not binding, amendments would be meaningless. Conversely, the existence of a new rule does not necessarily establish prior widespread violations. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I only / Both: include a historical claim not proved by the text. Either I or II: both are not mutually exclusive alternatives, and only II follows. Neither: ignores the binding nature of constitutional law. Common Pitfalls:Do not treat "new rule" as proof that the opposite was permitted earlier; legal changes can also be clarifications or reiterations. Final Answer:Only conclusion II follows

Question 5

Logical Deduction — Statements & Conclusions Statement: "The Government will withdraw 33% of the subsidy on cooking gas from the beginning of next month," said the spokesman. Which conclusions logically follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The problem examines how to move from a fiscal announcement to logically valid conclusions. A reduction of 33% of the subsidy is a policy detail; we must not over-interpret it into claims about public affordability or exact retail price changes. Given Data / Assumptions: A policy: withdraw 33% of the subsidy on cooking gas starting next month. Conclusion I: People no longer desire/need subsidy and can afford a higher price. Conclusion II: The consumer price of cooking gas will increase by at least 33%. Concept / Approach:Distinguish "subsidy percent" from "price percent." Removing a fraction of the subsidy changes the consumer's out-of-pocket price by the removed amount, which need not equal 33% of the total price. Also, government motives for subsidy reform do not prove consumers’ ability or desire. Step-by-Step Solution:Conclusion I fails: Policy change could be driven by budget constraints or efficiency goals, not necessarily because people can afford more.Conclusion II fails: If the subsidy is S and price before subsidy is P, consumer pays (P − S). Withdrawing 33% of S raises the price by 0.33 * S, which is not necessarily 33% of P or of the consumer's previous payment. Thus the exact "≥33%" retail increase is not compelled. Verification / Alternative check:Consider numerical example: P = 100, S = 30, consumer pays 70. Reduce subsidy by 33% of S = 10; consumer pays 80 next month. The increase is 10/70 ≈ 14.3%, not 33%. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I or II individually: neither is logically forced by the statement. Both: far too strong. Common Pitfalls:Confusing percent-of-subsidy with percent-of-price; reading government intent into consumer capacity. Final Answer:Neither I nor II follows

Question 6

Logical Deduction — Statements & Conclusions Statement: "A large majority of the workforce in India is unorganised. Most of them earn either minimum or uncertain wages, while others are engaged in sundry jobs." Which conclusions follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This item asks you to avoid overreach. The statement characterizes the unorganised sector; the conclusions try to draw inferences about the organised sector and about fixed incomes within the unorganised sector. Given Data / Assumptions: Description: Most unorganised workers earn minimum/uncertain wages; the rest do sundry jobs. Conclusion I: Organised-sector workers get better facilities and longer tenure. Conclusion II: Some unorganised workers have regular and fixed income. Concept / Approach:logically valid conclusions must be entailed by the premise. Facts about A (unorganised) do not by themselves prove anything about B (organised). Also, "most have minimum or uncertain wages" does not assert that "some have regular fixed wages." Step-by-Step Solution:Conclusion I fails: The premise never mentions facilities or tenure in the organised sector. Comparative claims require explicit data.Conclusion II fails: Saying most face minimum/uncertain wages and others do sundry jobs does not imply "some enjoy regular fixed wages." Sundry jobs may also be irregular; nothing guarantees fixed income. Verification / Alternative check:Construct a model population where every unorganised worker either earns minimum wage (not fixed beyond minimum) or has irregular sundry work; in such a model, both conclusions remain unproven, showing they are not entailed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I or II individually: each asserts more than the premise supports. Both: combines two unsupported inferences. Common Pitfalls:Leaping from "most/others" phrasing to an invented "some with fixed salaries"; importing stereotypes about the organised sector. Final Answer:Neither I nor II follows

Question 7

Logical Deduction — Statements & Conclusions Statement: "Industrial Revolution, which began in Europe, brought about the modern age." Which conclusions follow from the statement?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The prompt links a revolution (Industrial Revolution) to a transformative social outcome (the modern age). We must evaluate two general conclusions about revolution. Given Data / Assumptions: Conclusion I: Disparity between rich and poor results in revolution. Conclusion II: Revolution overhauls society. Concept / Approach:We can only infer what is supported. The statement provides no causal premise about inequality producing revolution. However, it does present a revolution that dramatically transformed society (ushered in a modern age), supporting a generalization about the overhaul effect. Step-by-Step Solution:I fails: The premise never mentions economic disparity or causes of revolution. Therefore, we cannot generalize about inequality as a cause.II follows: The Industrial Revolution is an instance of revolution that clearly overhauled society (technology, production, urbanization). Thus the statement supports that revolution can overhaul society. Verification / Alternative check:Test necessity: remove II and the claim "brought about the modern age" loses its interpretive force. Remove I and nothing changes, confirming I is not entailed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I only / Both / Either: all rely on a cause-of-revolution claim that is absent. Neither: ignores the explicit transformative link in the premise. Common Pitfalls:Confusing "why revolutions occur" with "what revolutions do." The statement only gives the latter. Final Answer:Only conclusion II follows

Question 8

Logical Deduction — Statements & Conclusions Statement: "The TV staff deserves applause for showing booth capturing." What, if anything, follows from this?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Commendation of media for exposing malpractice does not automatically reveal the broader aims of television or the legal outcomes for offenders. We must keep to what the sentence guarantees. Given Data / Assumptions: The TV staff showed booth capture and deserves applause. Conclusion I: TV aims to show things in their true perspective. Conclusion II: The culprits have been identified and are being tried by law. Concept / Approach:Praise for a single act does not prove a universal mission statement (I) nor confirm subsequent legal proceedings (II). The statement contains neither the network’s overarching purpose nor judicial updates. Step-by-Step Solution:I fails: From "deserves applause," you cannot deduce TV's general aim; the praise could be for a one-off investigative success.II fails: Exposure on TV does not guarantee identification, arrest, or trial; those outcomes depend on police and judiciary, which are not mentioned. Verification / Alternative check:Construct scenarios where TV aired footage, yet legal identification was pending or failed; the initial praise still stands, showing II is not entailed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I only / II only / Both: each adds content not present in the premise. Either I or II: neither is logically forced. Common Pitfalls:Do not read institutional mission or legal consequences into a simple commendation. Final Answer:Neither I nor II follows

Question 9

Logical Deduction — Statements & Conclusions Statement: "America’s defense secretary reiterated that they would continue to supply arms to Pakistan." Which conclusions, if any, follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A policy statement about arms supply says nothing explicit about Pakistan’s manufacturing capacity or the peace implications. We must avoid inserting geopolitical assumptions not present in the text. Given Data / Assumptions: Policy: Continue supplying arms to Pakistan. Conclusion I: Pakistan cannot manufacture arms. Conclusion II: Continued supply will ensure peace in the region. Concept / Approach:From a promise to supply, we cannot deduce a recipient’s incapacity; supply can occur despite local capacity. Nor can we guarantee the complex outcome of peace; arms transfers can both deter and escalate, but the statement claims neither. Step-by-Step Solution:I fails: The statement does not speak to indigenous production. Countries with capacity still import for interoperability or technology.II fails: No causal claim about peace is made. The statement is a reiteration, not a justification or strategic evaluation. Verification / Alternative check:Imagine Pakistan manufactures some arms but imports others; or continued supplies correlate with tension. The policy statement remains true regardless, proving neither conclusion is entailed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I only / II only / Both: add unsupported claims. Either: neither is compelled. Common Pitfalls:Projecting political opinions onto neutral policy wording. Final Answer:Neither I nor II follows

Question 10

Logical Deduction — Statements & Conclusions Statement: "Fortune favours the brave." Which conclusions follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Proverb-based prompts are often misread. The proverb links bravery with favorable outcomes, but we must assess the exact wording of the proposed conclusions. Given Data / Assumptions: Conclusion I: Risks are necessary for success. Conclusion II: Cowards die many times before their death. Concept / Approach:"Fortune favours the brave" asserts that bravery tends to attract success. It does not say bravery is strictly necessary (success might sometimes occur without risk-taking). Nor does it say anything about cowards and death—a separate proverb entirely. Step-by-Step Solution:I fails due to the word "necessary." The statement supports bravery as beneficial or often sufficient, not indispensable in every success scenario.II fails because it introduces a different claim not stated or implied by the given proverb. Verification / Alternative check:Consider successes achieved by luck or structural advantages without personal risk; these show I is too strong. II is unrelated content. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I only / II only / Both / Either: each accepts at least one unsupported statement. Common Pitfalls:Equating "favours" with "requires"; mixing unrelated proverbs. Final Answer:Neither I nor II follows

Question 11

Logical Deduction — Statements & Conclusions Statements: "Irregularity is a cause for failure in exams. Some regular students fail in the examinations." Which conclusions follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This question mixes causation and quantifiers. We are told irregularity can cause failure and that some regular students fail anyway. We must test two sweeping conclusions. Given Data / Assumptions: Premise 1: Irregularity can cause failure. Premise 2: Some regular students fail. Conclusion I: All failed students are regular. Conclusion II: All successful students are not regular. Concept / Approach:From "irregularity causes failure" we cannot say anything universal about all who fail or succeed. Multiple causes for failure may exist, and success can occur among both regular and irregular students. Step-by-Step Solution:I fails: If irregularity can cause failure, many failed students may in fact be irregular. The conclusion "all failed are regular" blatantly contradicts that possibility.II fails: Nothing in the premises says "all successful are not regular." Regularity often increases chances of success; many successful students could be regular. Verification / Alternative check:Construct examples: A cohort where irregular students fail and many regular ones succeed (with a few regular failures) satisfies the premises but refutes both conclusions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I only / II only / Both / Either: each accepts at least one universal statement that is not supported by the mixed premises. Common Pitfalls:Confusing "a cause" with "the only cause"; converting "some" into "all." Final Answer:Neither I nor II follows

Question 12

Logical Deduction — Statements & Conclusions Statement: "For outstanding candidates, the admission committee for M.A. (Social Work) may waive the condition of previous social-work experience." Which conclusions follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement describes an exception policy: a normally required condition (prior experience) can be waived for outstanding candidates. We must determine what necessarily follows about the pool of admitted students. Given Data / Assumptions: Normal rule: previous social-work experience is a condition. Exception: for outstanding candidates, the condition may be waived. Conclusion I: Some admitted students will have prior experience. Conclusion II: Some admitted students will not have prior experience. Concept / Approach:If a requirement exists but is waivable for a subset, it logically allows two categories among those admitted: those meeting the requirement and those legitimately admitted under waiver. Step-by-Step Solution:Because experience is ordinarily required, non-outstanding candidates (or outstanding ones who happen to have experience) will satisfy it. Hence "some admitted students will have prior experience" is consistent and expected.Because a waiver exists for outstanding candidates, at least some such candidates can be admitted without experience, yielding "some admitted students will not have prior experience." Verification / Alternative check:If no one lacked prior experience, the waiver clause would be pointless. If no one had prior experience, that would contradict the normal rule. Therefore both categories must be possible, and the pair of conclusions follows. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I only / II only: each ignores one side of the waiver logic. Either I or II: suggests exclusivity, which is incorrect. Neither: contradicts the very idea of a conditional waiver. Common Pitfalls:Overlooking the implication of a waiver: it presupposes the existence of a baseline condition and the possibility of admitted candidates without it. Final Answer:Both I and II follow

Question 13

Logical Deduction — Statements & Conclusions Statement: "Today, out of the world population of several thousand million, the majority live under governments that refuse them personal liberty and the right to dissent." Which conclusions follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement reports a political fact about the types of governments under which most people live. It does not claim anything about individual preferences. We must therefore be cautious about conclusions concerning what people want. Given Data / Assumptions: Premise: Majority live under regimes that deny liberty and the right to dissent. Conclusion I: People are indifferent to liberty and the right to dissent. Conclusion II: People desire liberty and the right to dissent. Concept / Approach:From an external condition (government type) alone, we cannot infer internal preferences of the governed. People may desire freedoms yet be unable to secure them; or some may be indifferent. The premise is silent on desires. Step-by-Step Solution:I fails: The existence of oppressive governments does not prove indifference among citizens; coercion and lack of agency are alternative explanations.II fails: Similarly, we cannot infer universal desire from the political arrangement alone; the statement provides no preference data. Verification / Alternative check:Both conclusions propose opposite internal states. Since the premise addresses only external governance, neither internal-state claim is entailed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I only / II only / Both / Either: each assumes facts about preferences that are not provided. Common Pitfalls:Reading moral or sociological conclusions (what people want) into purely descriptive political facts (how they are ruled). Final Answer:Neither I nor II follows

Question 14

Critical Reasoning — Conclusions Statement (advertisement): Double your money in five months. Which conclusion logically follows from the statement?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Many banking and reasoning exams test your ability to judge what conclusions follow directly from a given statement. Here the statement is an advertisement promising: 'Double your money in five months.' We must evaluate two candidate conclusions and decide which is logically supported without adding external assumptions. Given Data / Assumptions: Given promotional claim: 'Double your money in five months.' Conclusion I: The assurance is not genuine. Conclusion II: People want their money to grow. Concept / Approach: A conclusion 'follows' only if it is reasonably and directly implied by the given statement alone. Advertisements are crafted to appeal to a desire or need of the audience. They rarely prove genuineness; they simply presume a desire and offer a pitch. We cannot import our personal skepticism about such claims unless the statement itself provides evidence for disbelief. Step-by-Step Solution: Check Conclusion I: 'The assurance is not genuine.' The statement does not supply any proof of falsity. Claiming non-genuineness requires extra information. So I does not follow.Check Conclusion II: 'People want their money to grow.' The very purpose of such an advertisement is to attract those who desire growth of their funds. The ad presupposes this general motive; otherwise the message would be pointless. Hence II reasonably follows. Verification / Alternative check: If people did not seek returns, such a pitch would be ineffective. Therefore the existence of that desire is a fair, minimal inference. However, genuineness or fraudulence cannot be inferred either way from the text alone. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 'Only I' is incorrect because the statement never indicates falsity. 'Either I or II' is wrong because only II follows. 'Neither' is wrong since II follows. 'Both' is too strong; I does not follow. Common Pitfalls: Letting real-world skepticism override the strict rule: conclude only what the text implies. Ads imply a consumer desire but do not, by themselves, prove or disprove authenticity. Final Answer: Only conclusion II follows

Question 15

Critical Reasoning — Conclusions Statement: XYZ Medical College has started a cell to conduct stress-management counselling workshops for patients and the general public. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This problem asks what we may logically conclude when a hospital sets up a new counselling cell for stress management. We evaluate two conclusions: (I) the hospital has the needed resources; (II) patients and the public feel a need for such a cell. Only those inferences directly supported by the statement can be accepted. Given Data / Assumptions: The college 'has started' a dedicated cell for stress-management counselling. Target beneficiaries: patients and the general public. Conclusion I: The hospital has the resources to start such activity. Conclusion II: Patients and public 'feel a need' for such a cell in the hospital. Concept / Approach: An action completed ('has started') normally presupposes minimal capability and resources (space, staff, time) to perform it. Perceived need among beneficiaries is plausible but is not stated; institutions may start services proactively without measured demand. Step-by-Step Solution: Conclusion I: Starting a cell entails allocating staff and infrastructure; thus, the hospital must have necessary resources. I follows.Conclusion II: The statement does not say the decision came from surveyed need or public demand. It could be an initiative for community outreach or training. Therefore II does not necessarily follow. Verification / Alternative check: Even if beneficiaries benefit, their 'felt need' is not proven. But organizational capacity is demonstrated by the action itself. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 'Only II' assumes demand evidence not present. 'Either' is invalid since only one clearly follows. 'Neither' is too weak. 'Both' overstates the text. Common Pitfalls: Confusing 'reasonable motivation' with 'logically proved need.' We infer capability from action; we do not infer demand without explicit support. Final Answer: Only conclusion I follows

Question 16

Critical Reasoning — Conclusions Statement: The Prime Minister stated that the government will make every possible effort for the upliftment of poor farmers and farmhands. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement promises maximum effort toward a specific group's upliftment. We must test two sweeping conclusions: (I) everyone else has already benefited; (II) no serious efforts were made earlier for any group. Neither should be accepted unless the original statement entails it. Given Data / Assumptions: Commitment: 'every possible effort' for poor farmers and farmhands. Conclusion I: All non-target groups have already enjoyed development benefits. Conclusion II: Historically, there were no serious efforts for any section of society. Concept / Approach: Policy intent does not reveal historical distribution of benefits or absence of prior efforts. Do not overgeneralize beyond the scope of the statement. Step-by-Step Solution: The promise of future effort for a group does not imply that every other group has already benefited. Conclusion I does not follow.Nothing is said about the past intensity of efforts for any section; thus II also does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Even if other groups have or have not benefited, the statement alone cannot settle it. Similarly, earlier efforts could have existed; the statement neither confirms nor denies. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option claiming I, II, or both adds content not in the original sentence. Hence only 'Neither I nor II' is justified. Common Pitfalls: Mistaking targeted promises as evidence of neglect or achievement for others. Final Answer: Neither I nor II follows

Question 17

Critical Reasoning — Conclusions Statement: A neurotic is a non-stupid person who behaves stupidly. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The definition contrasts being stupid with behaving stupidly. We must judge two conclusions: (I) neuroticism and stupidity go hand in hand; (II) normal persons behave intelligently. The question is about what must follow from the definition alone. Given Data / Assumptions: Definition: 'Neurotic' = 'non-stupid person who behaves stupidly.' Conclusion I: Neuroticism and stupidity are concomitant. Conclusion II: Normal (non-neurotic) persons behave intelligently. Concept / Approach: The statement separates inherent capacity (not stupid) from behavior (stupid acts), showing they need not coincide. Nothing is stated about the behavior of 'normal' persons. Step-by-Step Solution: Conclusion I contradicts the definition, which says neurotics are not stupid by nature; they only behave stupidly. Hence I does not follow.Conclusion II generalizes about 'normal persons' without support. The statement does not discuss them at all. Hence II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: It is consistent with the definition that some normal persons may also occasionally behave unintelligently; therefore II is not entailed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option accepting I or II adds assertions not warranted by the text. Common Pitfalls: Equating 'acting stupidly' with 'being stupid'; generalizing about groups not referenced. Final Answer: Neither I nor II follows

Question 18

Critical Reasoning — Conclusions Statement: 'We should inform all our officers not to read newspapers during office hours,' says the Chief Manager to the Chief Administrator. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A directive is proposed regarding newspaper reading during office hours. We must test two conclusions: (I) reading newspapers in office hours is desirable; (II) stopping this will not increase efficiency. Only conclusions directly implied by the statement should be accepted. Given Data / Assumptions: Proposal: Inform officers not to read newspapers during office hours. Conclusion I: Reading newspapers in office hours is desirable. Conclusion II: Office efficiency will not increase by stopping this practice. Concept / Approach: A proposal to stop an activity typically implies the proposer believes the activity is undesirable, not desirable. However, beliefs about efficiency gains are not stated; the directive might be for discipline, optics, or policy uniformity. Step-by-Step Solution: Conclusion I contradicts the spirit of the directive; it does not follow.Conclusion II is also not implied; the statement does not speak about efficiency outcomes at all. Verification / Alternative check: Even if efficiency might increase or not, nothing in the text lets us conclude either way. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option asserting I or II adds unstated motives or effects. Hence only 'Neither' is valid. Common Pitfalls: Confusing likely managerial motives with what strictly follows from the given sentence. Final Answer: Neither I nor II follows

Question 19

Critical Reasoning — Conclusions News report: The Cabinet of State X took steps to tackle a milk glut because cooperatives and government dairies failed to use the available milk. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The report explicitly mentions a 'milk glut' and that existing institutions failed to utilize the available milk, prompting government action. We must infer which conclusion is justified: (I) production exceeds need; (II) government/co-op dairies lack resources/technology to handle excess milk. Given Data / Assumptions: There is a 'milk glut' in State X. Cooperatives and government dairies failed to use the available milk. Cabinet took steps to tackle the glut. Concept / Approach: 'Glut' means supply significantly exceeds demand/absorption at prevailing conditions. But 'failure to use' could result from many reasons: logistics, procurement policy, price, storage limits, coordination, or technology issues. The specific cause is not stated. Step-by-Step Solution: Conclusion I: 'Milk production is more than need.' This aligns with the notion of glut. Hence I follows.Conclusion II: 'Not equipped in resources/technology.' This assigns a specific reason for failure. The statement does not attribute cause; thus II does not necessarily follow. Verification / Alternative check: Even if dairies were well equipped, policy pricing or transport could still cause non-utilization. Therefore II is not compelled by the text. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options including II assume causation without evidence. 'Neither' is incorrect because I follows from 'glut.' Common Pitfalls: Equating 'failure to use' with a particular deficiency without textual support. Final Answer: Only conclusion I follows

Question 20

Critical Reasoning — Conclusions Statement: Video libraries are flourishing these days. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:We are told that video libraries are thriving. We must decide which inference is justified: (I) people have a 'video craze'; (II) watching many movies via video is much cheaper than visiting cinema halls. Only what is reasonably implied by flourishing demand can be concluded. Given Data / Assumptions: Observed outcome: video libraries are flourishing. Conclusion I: There is a widespread craze/strong preference among people for video content or renting videos. Conclusion II: Videos are much cheaper than cinema for multiple movies. Concept / Approach: Business flourishing generally indicates strong demand or consumer preference. Cost advantage may be one factor, but the statement does not specify price or a cost comparison to cinema halls. Step-by-Step Solution: Conclusion I: Increased popularity is a reasonable inference from flourishing businesses; I follows.Conclusion II: While possibly true in many contexts, it is not stated or entailed. Thriving could result from convenience, content variety, or availability, not necessarily price alone. II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Even if cinema prices fell, video libraries could still flourish due to home convenience; hence price inference is not mandatory. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option accepting II over-reads the text. 'Neither' ignores a clear implication (popularity). Common Pitfalls: Assuming a single cause (cost) for success when multiple drivers could exist. Final Answer: Only conclusion I follows

Statement and Conclusion Questions

Questions

Practice smarter