Question 1

Statement: “Sealed tenders are invited from competent contractors experienced in executing construction jobs.”  Conclusions: I. Tenders are invited only from experienced contractors. II. It is difficult to find competent tenderers for construction j…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The notice explicitly restricts eligibility to “competent contractors experienced in executing construction jobs.” This is a stated condition. Given Data / Assumptions: Eligibility criterion: prior experience (and competence) is required. No information about market difficulty in finding such contractors. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I restates the explicit restriction; Conclusion II speculates about availability and difficulty, which the statement does not address. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: Directly supported—only experienced contractors may submit sealed tenders.• II: Not stated; the invitation could be routine even in a deep pool. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either deny I or add II without evidence. Final Answer: If only Conclusion I follows.

Question 2

Statement: “Safety lockers are the best place to preserve valuables.”  Conclusions: I. Valuables are not safe at any place. II. There are few places better than safety lockers to preserve valuables.  Which conclusion(s) logically follow(s)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Best place” asserts a comparative superlative among available options; it does not imply universal lack of safety elsewhere. Given Data / Assumptions: Safety lockers are superior for preserving valuables. Other places may still be safe, just not the “best.” Concept / Approach: If X is the best, then there are none better; equivalently, there are at most equally good alternatives. Conclusion II paraphrases this idea. Conclusion I overreaches to “not safe anywhere,” which contradicts the comparative framing. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: False generalisation—rejected.• II: Correctly reflects superlative claim—follows. Final Answer: If only Conclusion II follows.

Question 3

Statement: “He emphasised the need to replace the present training programme by other methods that will bring out the real merit of the managers.”  Conclusions: I. It is important to bring out the real merit of the managers. II. The present training…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: If someone emphasises replacement of the current programme by methods that bring out “real merit,” two things are implicit: (a) revealing real merit matters; (b) the current programme fails to do so adequately. Given Data / Assumptions: Desired outcome: bringing out real managerial merit. Proposed action: replace the present programme. Concept / Approach: Advocacy for replacement specifically “to bring out real merit” presupposes the importance of that objective and implies deficiency in the current setup relative to that objective. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: Follows—he values the objective strongly enough to call for change.• II: Follows—if the present programme already brought out real merit, replacement solely for that reason would be unnecessary. Final Answer: If both Conclusions I and II follow.

Question 4

Statements: I. All students in my class are intelligent. II. Sunil is not intelligent.  Conclusions: I. Sunil is not a student of my class. II. Sunil must work hard.  Which conclusion(s) logically follow(s)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Classic syllogism: “All A are B”; “C is not B” ⇒ “C is not A.” Given Data / Assumptions: All students in my class (set A) are intelligent (set B). Sunil ∉ B (not intelligent). Concept / Approach: Contrapositive reasoning: If Sunil were a student in my class, he would be intelligent. He is not; therefore, he is not a student in my class. Step-by-Step Solution: • Conclusion I: Follows by contrapositive.• Conclusion II: “Must work hard” is a recommendation, not a logical necessity from the premises. Final Answer: Only Conclusion I follows.

Question 5

Statements: I. Education is a process of lighting. II. The mind requires light to enlighten the core of its cognitive aspect.  Conclusions: I. Education is a light which removes the darkness of the mind. II. Education is a static process for the min…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The metaphors equate education with lighting and the mind’s need for light to become enlightened. This supports a conceptual conclusion that education dispels mental darkness. Given Data / Assumptions: Education ~ lighting. Mind needs light to enlighten cognition. Concept / Approach: From the metaphor, conclusion I follows. Nothing suggests education is “static”; in fact, “process of lighting” implies dynamism. Step-by-Step Solution: • I: Consistent with the premises—follows.• II: “Static” contradicts “process”—does not follow. Final Answer: Only Conclusion I follows.

Question 6

Statements: I. For protection of Indian museums, the Central Government is responsible. II. Victoria Memorial Hall is a national property.  Conclusions: I. “India museum” is national property. II. Historical property of the nation is protected by th…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a classical “statements and conclusions” test. We are given two independent premises about responsibility for protecting Indian museums and about the status of a specific monument (Victoria Memorial Hall) being national property. We must determine which conclusions necessarily and unambiguously follow from those premises alone, without adding external facts or world knowledge. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement I: The Central Government is responsible for the protection of Indian museums. Statement II: Victoria Memorial Hall is national property. No other categories (e.g., “historical property” in general) are mentioned in Statement I. No claim is made about the “India museum” (likely intended “Indian Museum”) being national property. Concept / Approach: Only conclusions that are a necessary logical consequence of the premises can be accepted. Any enlargement of scope (e.g., from “museums” to all “historical property”) or any new attribution (e.g., “X is national property”) not stated or entailed must be rejected. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Test Conclusion I: The premises never assert that “India museum” (or “Indian Museum”) is national property. From Statement I we only know who protects museums; Statement II only classifies Victoria Memorial Hall. Therefore, Conclusion I does not follow.2) Test Conclusion II: Statement I restricts protection responsibility to “museums,” not the broader class “historical property.” Extending the protection claim from museums to all historical property is a scope leap. Hence, Conclusion II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: If we reframe: Premise A = “Central protects museums” and Premise B = “Victoria Memorial is national property.” Neither premise equates “national property” with “museum,” nor generalises protection to all historical properties. No necessary link supports the conclusions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • Only I / Only II / Both / Either: Each accepts at least one unsupported extension or attribution. Common Pitfalls: Generalising beyond the stated category; reading real-world facts into the logical task; assuming “national property ⇒ under Central protection” without being stated. Final Answer: Neither Conclusion I nor II follows.

Question 7

Statements: I. Leaders are human beings. II. All human beings need rest.  Conclusions: I. All human beings are not leaders. II. Leaders need rest.  Which conclusion(s) logically follow(s)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a standard categorical syllogism. We are told that the set of leaders is a subset of the set of human beings, and that every human being needs rest. We must test two candidate conclusions. Given Data / Assumptions: Premise 1: Leaders ⊆ Humans. Premise 2: Humans ⊆ Rest-needing-beings (i.e., all humans need rest). Concept / Approach: From subset chaining: if Leaders ⊆ Humans and all Humans need rest, then all Leaders need rest. However, “All humans are not leaders” (i.e., not every human is a leader) cannot be inferred from “Leaders are humans” because it could still be possible (logically) that all humans happen to be leaders. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Conclusion II: “Leaders need rest.” Since every human needs rest and leaders are humans, this necessarily follows.2) Conclusion I: “All humans are not leaders.” The premises do not rule out the possibility that every human is a leader; they only state that leaders are among humans. Therefore, I does not necessarily follow. Verification / Alternative check: Construct a model: Suppose the set of humans equals the set of leaders. Both premises remain true. But Conclusion I would be false in that model, hence I does not follow necessarily. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • Both: Overstates; I fails.• Neither: Understates; II follows.• Only I / Either: Incorrect as I does not follow. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “Some A are B” or “All A are B” with its converse; assuming that a proper subset relation was stated when only subset inclusion was given. Final Answer: Only Conclusion II follows.

Question 8

Statements: I. The Constitution assures fundamental rights. II. Parliament has the right to amend the Constitution.  Conclusions: I. Parliament included fundamental rights in the Constitution. II. Parliament did not assure the fundamental rights.  W…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We are presented with two independent premises—one about what the Constitution guarantees, another about Parliament’s amending power. The task is to test two conclusions about Parliament’s role regarding fundamental rights. Given Data / Assumptions: Premise I: The Constitution (as a document) assures fundamental rights. Premise II: Parliament has the right to amend the Constitution. No premise mentions who originally included those rights, nor whether Parliament “assured” them. Concept / Approach: From “X assures Y” we cannot infer “Agent Z assured Y,” unless Z is explicitly linked to that assurance. From “Z can amend X,” we cannot infer that Z created Y within X. The conclusions attempt to attribute authorship and assurance to Parliament without supporting premises. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Conclusion I: “Parliament included fundamental rights.” The premises never claim authorship; Parliament’s amending power does not imply it authored or inserted the rights.2) Conclusion II: “Parliament did not assure the fundamental rights.” This is a negated authorship claim; the premises do not discuss who assured them, so we cannot assert this either. Verification / Alternative check: Consider two models—(a) Parliament authored the rights; (b) a Constituent Assembly authored them. Both models satisfy the premises; therefore, neither I nor II is compelled. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • Any option that accepts I or II assumes authorship information not present in the premises. Common Pitfalls: Equating “power to amend” with “authorship” or “assurance”; reading historical facts into a purely logical exercise. Final Answer: Neither Conclusion I nor II follows.

Question 9

Statement: “All guilty politicians were arrested. Kishan and Chander were among those arrested.”  From the statement above, which inference is logically certain?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement provides two pieces of information: (1) every guilty politician is in the arrested set, and (2) Kishan and Chander are in the arrested set. We are asked to identify what must logically follow—i.e., what is true in every model that satisfies the statement—without adding external assumptions. Given Data / Assumptions: All guilty politicians ⊆ Arrested. Kishan ∈ Arrested; Chander ∈ Arrested. No information about whether the arrested set contains non-politicians or innocents. Concept / Approach: From “All guilty politicians were arrested,” we know a sufficient condition for arrest (being a guilty politician). The converse is not given: being arrested does not imply being a guilty politician (others may also have been arrested). Therefore, membership in the arrested set does not, by itself, classify an individual as a politician or as guilty. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Check (a): “Kishan and Chander were guilty politicians.” This could be true, but it is not necessary; they may have been arrested for other reasons (e.g., preventive detention, being suspects, or non-political offences).2) Check (b): “All arrested people were politicians.” The statement does not say that; it only constrains one subgroup (guilty politicians). So (b) is not necessary.3) Check (d): “Kishan and Chander were not politicians.” Also not implied; they could be politicians or not—we are not told.4) Check (c): “Some arrested might not be politicians.” This is possible, but not guaranteed; the arrested set could, in an extreme model, consist exactly of all and only guilty politicians.5) Therefore, the only logically safe, necessary inference is that no definite classification of Kishan and Chander (politician/guilty) can be made from the given statement alone. Verification / Alternative check: Construct two models consistent with the premise: Model 1—Only guilty politicians were arrested (then Kishan and Chander are guilty politicians). Model 2—Guilty politicians and some others were arrested (then Kishan and Chander could be non-politicians). As both models satisfy the premise but yield different statuses for Kishan and Chander, no definite conclusion about their guilt or political status can be drawn. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • (a), (b), (d) assert specifics not guaranteed.• (c) claims existence beyond necessity; it is possible but not certain. Common Pitfalls: Assuming the converse of a universal statement; confusing sufficiency with necessity. Final Answer: No definite inference about whether Kishan and Chander were politicians or guilty can be drawn.

Question 10

Statement — Many business offices are located in buildings having two to eight floors. Rule — If a building has more than three floors, then that building has a lift (elevator).  From the statement and the rule above, identify the conclusion that mu…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This verbal-reasoning item tests your ability to convert a conditional rule into sure-shot logical consequences while avoiding assumptions not guaranteed by the text. The stem states a domain (office buildings with 2–8 floors) and a conditional: “If a building has more than three floors, it has a lift.” Our job is to examine each option and keep only what must always be true given the rule, not what might be true in some real-life cases. Given Data / Assumptions: Universe: buildings with floors in the set {2,3,4,5,6,7,8} that host business offices. Rule: If floors > 3, then lift is present. Symbolically, floors > 3 → has_lift. No promise is made about buildings with ≤ 3 floors. No constraint is stated about which particular floors the lift serves, only that the building “has a lift.” Concept / Approach: Translate the conditional carefully and then test each option for necessity. Any statement that refers to buildings with 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 floors should follow directly. Any claim about 2 or 3 floors is not guaranteed. Any statement about lift service to particular floors (e.g., “only above third floor”) also goes beyond the given rule. Step-by-Step Solution: Option A: A five-floor building has floors > 3, so by the rule the building must have a lift. This is necessarily true.Option B: The rule never limits lift service to floors above the third; it merely guarantees a lift exists in buildings with floors > 3. So this is not compelled.Option C: Two-storey buildings (floors = 2) are not covered by the rule. They may or may not have lifts. So this is not compelled.Option D: “All buildings have lifts” is stronger than the rule and is not guaranteed.Option E: Exactly three floors (floors = 3) does not satisfy “more than three.” Not compelled. Verification / Alternative check: Construct a counterexample for options B–E: a 3-floor building without a lift violates none of the rules but falsifies B, D, E in their implied universality. A 2-floor building without a lift also shows C is not necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B, C, D, E import claims not stated by the conditional or speak about cases (≤ 3 floors) that are outside the guaranteed set. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “has a lift” with “lift only serves certain floors,” and assuming facts about two- or three-storey buildings when the rule is only for > 3 floors. Final Answer: Every building that has five floors necessarily has a lift.

Question 11

Statement — The ministers arrived at the public function in their cars.  Which conclusion follows necessarily from the statement (without adding external assumptions about ownership or wealth)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The stem states a specific occurrence: “Ministers arrived at the public function in their cars.” Your task is to select the conclusion that is guaranteed by this sentence alone, avoiding assumptions about wealth, ownership, or typical behavior outside the described event. Given Data / Assumptions: An actual event: some ministers arrived at a specific public function. Mode of arrival for those ministers: by cars (described as “their cars,” which need not imply personal ownership; it could be official vehicles). No universal claims are made about all ministers or all public functions. Concept / Approach: We must distinguish between a particular factual report (what happened at this function) and a universal generalization (what always happens or what is true of all ministers). Only the particular, directly entailed claim is safe. Step-by-Step Solution: Option A (“All ministers are rich”) introduces an attribute (richness) not mentioned. Not entailed.Option B simply restates the particular fact in a logically safe form: the ministers who arrived did so using cars. This follows necessarily.Option C generalizes beyond the event (“Ministers come to public functions”). The stem gives a single instance, not a universal rule. Not entailed.Option D combines B (particular) with C (general). Because C is not guaranteed, D is not guaranteed.Option E (“None”) is incorrect because B is a valid inference. Verification / Alternative check: Try negating B: “The ministers who arrived did not use cars.” This contradicts the stem, so B must be true. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A adds wealth; C and D make global assertions beyond the scope of the described event; E ignores the direct entailment. Common Pitfalls: Equating “their cars” with private ownership and jumping to “rich.” The stem only reports the mode of arrival. Final Answer: The ministers who arrived at the function used cars to reach the venue.

Question 12

Premises — All students in my class are intelligent. Koushik (Kaushik) is not intelligent. Question — What conclusion necessarily follows?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a classic categorical syllogism. The major premise says, “All students in my class are intelligent.” The second premise says, “Koushik is not intelligent.” We must identify what conclusion is forced by these two statements without importing outside facts. Given Data / Assumptions: Set S = {students in my class}. Property I = “intelligent.” Premise 1: For every x in S, x has property I. Premise 2: Koushik does not have property I. Concept / Approach: From Premise 1, membership in S implies intelligent. Contraposition: if someone is not intelligent, they cannot be in S. Applying to Koushik (not intelligent) yields: Koushik ∉ S (i.e., not a student of my class). Avoid universal claims about all students or all non-intelligent people; stick to what follows for Koushik. Step-by-Step Solution: All S → I.Koushik is ¬I.Therefore Koushik is ¬S (not in the class). This is the only necessary conclusion. Verification / Alternative check: Suppose for contradiction Koushik were in the class. Then by Premise 1 he would be intelligent, contradicting Premise 2. Hence he cannot be in the class. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: “Some students are not intelligent” contradicts Premise 1.B: “Non-intelligent are not students” is too broad; the premises speak only about “students in my class,” not all students everywhere.D: Claims intelligence for everyone else globally; not supported.E: Incorrect because C necessarily follows. Common Pitfalls: Generalizing beyond the stated set (“my class”) and confusing “some” with “all.” Final Answer: Koushik is not a student of my class.

Question 13

Premises — 1) “None but the rich can afford air travel” (i.e., only rich people can afford air travel). 2) Some of those who travel by air become sick. 3) Some of those who become sick require treatment. Question — Which conclusion is valid?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We are given a classic “only” statement (“none but the rich…”) and two additional existential premises about sickness and treatment among air travelers. The task is to identify which conclusion is logically entailed, not merely plausible. Given Data / Assumptions: “None but the rich can afford air travel” means: If a person can afford air travel (or travels by air), then that person is rich. Symbolically, AirTravel → Rich. “Some who travel by air become sick” and “some of those sick require treatment” add detail but do not alter the “only rich afford” mapping. No claim is made that all rich travel by air, or that all air travelers become sick. Concept / Approach: Translate “only” carefully. The correct inference from “only rich can afford air travel” is that every air traveler belongs to the set of rich people. It does not say the reverse (that every rich person travels by air). Evaluate options accordingly. Step-by-Step Solution: Option A (“All rich persons travel by air”): Converse error; not entailed.Option B (“Those who travel by air become sick”): Overgeneralization; the premise says “some,” not “all.”Option C (“All rich persons become sick”): Unrelated universal; not supported.Option D (“All those who travel by air are rich”): This is exactly the “only rich afford air travel” implication. Entailed.Option E (“None”): Incorrect since D follows. Verification / Alternative check: Try a model: Let 10 rich people exist, 3 travel by air, and 2 of those get sick, 1 needs treatment. All statements hold and D remains true. No contradiction occurs. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A, C: Illicit converse/unwarranted universals.B: Turns “some” into “all.” Common Pitfalls: Misreading “only” statements. Remember: “Only rich travel by air” means “air traveler → rich,” not “rich → air traveler.” Final Answer: All those who travel by air are rich.

Question 14

Premises — I) Only students can participate in the race. II) Some participants in the race are girls. III) All girl participants in the race are invited for coaching. Question — Which conclusion necessarily follows?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item mixes set restriction (“only students”) with a subset receiving an invitation (all girl participants). We must pick the conclusion guaranteed by the premises and avoid adding unstated coverage to groups not mentioned explicitly. Given Data / Assumptions: “Only students can participate” → Participant → Student. “Some participants are girls” → There exists at least one participant who is a girl. “All girl participants are invited” → (Participant ∧ Girl) → Invited. Concept / Approach: From I), every participant is a student. From II)–III), we know some invitees exist (the girl participants), but nothing is said about non-girl participants. So we can conclude “all participants are students,” but we cannot conclude “all participants are invited.” Step-by-Step Solution: Option A: Overreach. Only girl participants are guaranteed invites; other participants may or may not be invited.Option B: Direct consequence of “only students can participate.”Option C: Includes A, which is not guaranteed, so it fails.Option D: Incorrect because B is guaranteed.Option E: While true (some invited are girls), it is not among the original four choices in a standard single-answer format unless we explicitly include it; here, the necessary conclusion requested by the typical pattern is B. Verification / Alternative check: Construct a model where non-girl participants receive no invite; A fails but B remains true. Hence B is the unique necessary conclusion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A assumes all participants invited; not stated.C piggybacks on A.D ignores B’s necessity. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “only students can participate” with “only participants are students.” The former implies participant → student, not the converse. Final Answer: All participants in the race are students.

Question 15

Statement — Electrically operated machines do not cause pollution. Question — Which inference is most reasonable to draw from the statement (without adding extra-world assumptions)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The stem states a causal/environmental claim exclusively about electrically operated machines: they do not cause pollution. We are to select the most reasonable inference that respects the scope of the statement and avoids sweeping claims about all machines or all energy sources. Given Data / Assumptions: Claim: If a machine is electrically operated, then it does not cause pollution (as per the statement’s simplified test-world). No information is given about non-electric machines, the electrical grid’s upstream effects, or the proportion of machines by energy type. We may, however, prefer non-polluting alternatives when the goal is to reduce direct machine-caused pollution. Concept / Approach: We should avoid universal quantifiers not supported by the statement. Options asserting “all machines are electric,” “no other energy exists,” or “most machines are electric” go beyond the data. A preference-based inference that aligns with the stated environmental benefit is the safest, policy-relevant choice. Step-by-Step Solution: Option A: “All machines are electric” is an overgeneralization; not implied.Option B: “No energy other than electricity exists” is absurdly broad; not implied.Option C: “Most machines are electric” is a statistical claim; not given.Option D: Prefers electrically operated machines where feasible, consistent with their non-polluting nature as stated. This is a reasonable and bounded inference.Option E: Not chosen because D is justified. Verification / Alternative check: Policy guidance often follows from property statements (non-polluting). Preferring the non-polluting option (when available) aligns with the premise without asserting universals or unknown quantities. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A, B, C invent universals or proportions absent from the stem. Common Pitfalls: Reading a property statement as a census or exclusivity claim. Final Answer: Where feasible, electrically operated machines are preferable to use to reduce pollution.

Question 16

Statement — “Smoking is one of those human weaknesses which tend to test a smoker’s willpower to the edge.” Courses of Action — I. It is very difficult for smokers to give up smoking even if they want to do so. II. Human beings have other weaknesses…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a “course of action” style question framed as inferences from a descriptive statement. The stem asserts that smoking tests willpower “to the edge,” indicating considerable difficulty in quitting. We must check which of the proposed downstream statements follows directly and usefully from that assertion. Given Data / Assumptions: Smoking strongly challenges willpower. People who wish to quit face significant difficulty. No comment is made on the full spectrum of other human weaknesses. Concept / Approach: From “tests willpower to the edge,” it is reasonable to recognize quitting difficulty (Course I). Course II makes a broad claim about “other weaknesses” that, while likely true in real life, does not flow uniquely or necessarily from the given sentence and does not guide action with respect to the smoking problem specifically. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate I: The stem’s emphasis on extreme willpower testing warrants the actionable recognition that quitting is hard even for motivated smokers. Hence I follows.Evaluate II: The stem does not discuss “other weaknesses.” This is extraneous as a course of action; it neither follows from nor addresses the specific issue at hand. Verification / Alternative check: Policy implications (nicotine replacement, counseling) derive from acknowledging quitting difficulty (I). No such programmatic utility arises merely from asserting the existence of other weaknesses (II). Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II / Either / Neither / Both: They either import irrelevant generalities or omit the directly implied difficulty in quitting. Common Pitfalls: Accepting true-but-irrelevant general statements (II) as “following.” Valid conclusions must be tied to the given premise. Final Answer: if only I follows

Question 17

Premise — All scientists working in America are talented; some of these scientists are Indian. Conclusions — I. None of the Indian scientists is talented. II. Some talented Indian scientists have migrated (are in America). III. All talented scientis…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We have a two-part premise: (1) every scientist (working) in America is talented; (2) some of these America-based scientists are Indian. We must deduce which conclusions are compelled. Given Data / Assumptions: (All scientists in America) → (Talented). There exists at least one scientist who is both in America and Indian. No claims about all talented scientists or all Indian scientists globally are made beyond this intersection. Concept / Approach: From existence of Indian scientists in America, and “in America → talented,” it follows that some Indian scientists are talented (IV). Moreover, those talented Indian scientists are (by premise) in America, i.e., “have migrated/are working there,” which supports II. Claims negating talent for Indian scientists (I) or universalizing talent-location (III) are not warranted. Step-by-Step Solution: I: “None of the Indian scientists is talented” is the exact opposite of what follows; false.II: Since some Indian scientists are in America and all scientists in America are talented, “some talented Indian scientists are in America” is true.III: “All talented scientists are in America” overgeneralizes; not implied.IV: From the same reasoning as II, “some Indian scientists are talented” is true. Verification / Alternative check: Construct a model: 10 talented scientists worldwide, 3 in America (all talented), 2 of those are Indian. II and IV hold; I and III fail. The premises remain satisfied. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A (I) contradicts the premise, C (III) is an illicit universal. Common Pitfalls: Reversing implications or assuming all talent resides in one country without support. Final Answer: Conclusion II and IV follows

Question 18

Statement — Parents are prepared to pay any price for “elite” education for their children. Question — Which conclusion necessarily follows from the statement without adding assumptions about every parent’s wealth?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The stem highlights willingness to “pay any price” for elite schooling. This expresses intensity of preference (value placed on education), not a census of wealth. We must choose the conclusion that logically reflects parental motivation rather than their financial status in general. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement concerns “parents prepared to pay any price” for elite education. It signals strong motivation/priority given to perceived “perfect development.” No universal claim is made that every parent is rich. Concept / Approach: From a willingness to spend heavily on schooling, we may infer a strong aspiration toward high-quality education and development. We cannot validly infer that all parents are wealthy; some may stretch finances, take loans, or make sacrifices. Step-by-Step Solution: Option A: Overgeneralizes wealth; not entailed.Option B: Captures the motivational reading — obsession/priority for “perfect development” via good schools — which aligns with the stem.Option C: False dichotomy; not supported.Option D: Too skeptical; the value preference is inferable.Option E: Not needed since B follows. Verification / Alternative check: Examples exist where non-wealthy parents still prioritize elite schooling through sacrifices; this supports B without requiring A. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A invents universal wealth; C fabricates extremes; D ignores a clear attitudinal implication. Common Pitfalls: Equating willingness to pay with proof that all parents are rich. Final Answer: Parents have an intense desire for top-quality schooling to ensure all-round development of their children.

Question 19

Statement — An interview panel may select a student who lacks both the desired-level abilities and the expected values/assumptions. Question — What conclusions about the interview process follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The stem asserts a failure case: panels can pick applicants lacking required ability and values. We must reason about what this implies for (I) the sufficiency of including “experts,” and (II) the limitations of interviews as a selection method. Given Data / Assumptions: An interview process produced an unsatisfactory selection. Panels (even with experts) are not error-free. No evidence is provided that the method always succeeds. Concept / Approach: One counterexample is sufficient to refute claims of guaranteed correctness. If a panel can err, then “experts guarantee proper selection” is false, and the procedure has limitations. Step-by-Step Solution: Conclusion I: “Inclusion of experts does not ensure proper selection.” The given failure case supports this. Follows.Conclusion II: “Interview procedure has limitations.” Also follows directly from the observed failure. Verification / Alternative check: Even with training and structure, interviews show variance and bias; a single documented mis-selection proves non-guarantee. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options choosing only I or only II understate the full implication; “either” misses that both are supported. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “experts present” with “infallible.” Final Answer: if both I and II follows

Question 20

Statement — In India, emphasis should shift more to agricultural engineering and technology rather than basic/pure science. Question — Which conclusion follows?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The policy suggestion favors applied, production-oriented domains (agri-engineering/technology) “rather than” basic/pure science. We must infer what this implies about India’s past focus and current needs without assuming success levels in basic science achievement. Given Data / Assumptions: Normative claim: give more emphasis to applied/production-linked areas. No explicit claim that basic science is already “sufficient.” “Rather than” indicates relative reprioritization due to perceived production/economic needs. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I (“India has achieved sufficient development in basic/pure science”) is not entailed; the recommendation might arise from gaps in productive sectors regardless of basic science status. Conclusion II (“The production sector was neglected”) is a plausible reading: the call to shift emphasis implies prior under-emphasis on production-linked education/technology. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess I: The statement does not grade India’s performance in basic science; cannot infer sufficiency.Assess II: A move to prioritize applied/production areas reasonably presumes earlier under-prioritization (neglect) there. Hence II follows. Verification / Alternative check: If production areas had not been neglected, a major policy push “rather than” basic science would be less warranted. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I is unsupported; combos including I therefore fail. Common Pitfalls: Equating a policy shift with a verdict that other areas are already “done.” Final Answer: if only Conclusions II follows

Statement and Conclusion Questions