Question 1

Critical Reasoning — Conclusions Statement: Although the education system has progressed in number of schools, most are ill-equipped and have not achieved excellence in imparting education. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement contrasts quantity growth with quality shortfalls: more schools exist, but most lack equipment and excellence. We must evaluate two proposed conclusions: (I) in future we should provide good teachers/equipment to these schools; (II) we need not open any more schools. Given Data / Assumptions: Quantity has increased (more schools). Quality is lacking (most are ill-equipped; excellence not achieved). Conclusion I: Improve inputs (teachers, equipment) to address quality gap. Conclusion II: Stop opening new schools. Concept / Approach: From a diagnosis of quality deficiency, a prescription to improve quality inputs directly addresses the problem—this is a reasonable course-of-action conclusion. Nothing in the statement implies that additional capacity is never needed; stopping expansion is not warranted by the data. Step-by-Step Solution: Conclusion I: Aligns with the identified gap (equipment/excellence) and therefore follows logically as a remedial direction.Conclusion II: Does not follow. Demand for schooling could still exceed supply; the statement does not address capacity sufficiency, only quality. Verification / Alternative check: Even if more schools are needed for access, improving current quality remains necessary; therefore I stands independently of II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Accepting II extrapolates beyond evidence. 'Neither' ignores an obvious quality-improvement implication. Common Pitfalls: Confusing 'quality gap' with 'no need for quantity expansion.' They are different policy issues. Final Answer: Only conclusion I follows

Question 2

Critical Reasoning — Conclusions Statement: 'This book Z is the only book that focuses on the problem of poverty in India between 1950 and 1980.' Which conclusion(s) follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We are told book Z is the only one focusing on poverty in India during 1950–1980. We test: (I) there was no poverty before 1950; (II) no other book deals with poverty in India in 1950–1980. We must accept only what is directly implied by 'only book' within the specified period. Given Data / Assumptions: Uniqueness claim for the period 1950–1980 (focus on poverty in India). Conclusion I: No poverty before 1950 (a historical claim beyond the statement). Conclusion II: No other book covers poverty in India for 1950–1980. Concept / Approach: 'Only book' for a time window implies exclusivity relative to other books for that same window. It says nothing about times outside the window (before 1950), so we cannot infer I. Step-by-Step Solution: Reject I: The sentence does not discuss pre-1950 poverty conditions.Accept II: 'Only book' for 1950–1980 implies no other book focuses on that subject for that period. Verification / Alternative check: Even if numerous books exist for other years, the uniqueness within 1950–1980 is preserved, satisfying II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 'Only I' and 'Both' contradict the scope; 'Neither' ignores the explicit exclusivity claim; 'Either' is invalid since only II follows. Common Pitfalls: Projecting the statement beyond its specified time frame. Final Answer: Only conclusion II follows

Question 3

Critical Reasoning — Conclusions Statement: For over three decades, Company X has been totally involved in energy conservation, its efficient use, and management. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement asserts long-term, total involvement in a specific technical domain. We must evaluate: (I) the company still needs to learn basic things; (II) dedication is more important than knowledge and expertise. Only inferences grounded in the statement should be accepted. Given Data / Assumptions: Company X: three decades of total involvement in energy conservation, efficient use, and management. Conclusion I: The company has yet to acquire basic knowledge in this area. Conclusion II: Dedication matters more than knowledge/expertise. Concept / Approach: Longevity and total involvement suggest significant experience, not lack of basics. The statement contains no value judgment comparing dedication with expertise; it merely reports involvement duration and scope. Step-by-Step Solution: Conclusion I contradicts the implication of sustained, focused work; it does not follow.Conclusion II introduces an evaluative claim absent from the statement; it does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Even if dedication exists, we cannot infer its relative importance versus knowledge. Likewise, three decades of involvement do not imply ignorance of basics. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option asserting I or II reads in content not present. Hence only 'Neither' is correct. Common Pitfalls: Drawing evaluative or comparative conclusions from a purely descriptive statement. Final Answer: Neither I nor II follows

Question 4

Critical Reasoning — Protein Extraction Claim and Valid Conclusions Statements: • About 50% of animal by-products (hair, skin, horns, etc.) is edible protein. • American chemists have developed a method of isolating 45% of this protein. • They used …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests whether the offered conclusions logically follow from the given scientific claims. We are told some facts about the proportion of edible protein in animal by-products, that U.S. chemists can isolate 45% of that protein, and that they used a Japanese-developed enzyme (originally used for soya protein). We must decide if the conclusions about Americans' capability to develop enzymes and about protein composition similarity are warranted. Given Data / Assumptions: Animal by-products contain ~50% edible protein. American chemists isolated 45% of this protein. They used a Japan-developed enzyme for soya protein breakdown. No claim is made about Americans' inability to develop enzymes. No biochemical equivalence between animal by-product protein and soya protein is stated. Concept / Approach: We must separate what is explicitly stated from what is merely plausible. Using a foreign-developed tool does not imply an inability to develop a similar tool domestically. Likewise, using an enzyme that works on soya protein does not prove identity of composition between soya protein and animal by-product protein; enzymes can act on different substrates or overlapping peptide bonds without full compositional identity. Step-by-Step Solution: Check Conclusion I: “Americans have not been able to develop enzymes.” The passage only states they used a Japanese enzyme; it says nothing about the inability of Americans to develop one.Check Conclusion II: “Animal by-products protein has the same composition as soya protein.” Nothing in the statements asserts identical composition; cross-applicability of an enzyme is not proof of identity.Therefore, neither I nor II follows strictly from the premises. Verification / Alternative check: Look for missing links: the premises lack any general claim about American enzyme research capability and lack any biochemical compositional equivalence claim. Hence, both conclusions overreach. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II: each asserts information not provided. Either I or II / Both: at least one would need to be entailed; neither is. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “used a tool from X” with “cannot build a tool,” and assuming functional overlap means identical composition. Final Answer: Neither I nor II follows

Question 5

Critical Reasoning — Public Appeal and Predictable Outcomes Statement: • The police commissioner appealed to the public not to put up banners that obstruct pedestrian or motor traffic. What can be concluded with certainty?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The prompt features an appeal by the police commissioner asking people to refrain from erecting banners that obstruct traffic. We must evaluate which conclusion logically follows from such an appeal. Given Data / Assumptions: An official, public appeal is issued to citizens. Purpose: prevent obstructions to pedestrian or vehicular flow. No explicit operational plan (e.g., surveillance or monitoring) is mentioned. Concept / Approach: From an appeal, a minimal, reasonable expectation is that at least some people may respond positively. However, operational steps like “policemen will have to keep a watchful eye” introduce new logistics not contained in the statement. We should pick the conclusion that is directly supported without adding extra assumptions. Step-by-Step Solution: Conclusion I: “Some people may respond and will not put up such banners.” Since appeals are made to influence behavior, it is reasonable to infer that at least some compliance is anticipated. This is a standard, minimal consequence of making a public appeal.Conclusion II: “Policemen will have to keep a watchful eye on new banners being put up.” This introduces enforcement logistics not stated; the appeal alone does not imply such a policy will follow.Therefore, only conclusion I follows. Verification / Alternative check: Appeals are often issued with the assumption that citizens can change behavior voluntarily. Surveillance or active monitoring is a separate decision, not logically entailed by the appeal. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II / Either / Both: all rely on assuming operational steps not given. Neither: too strong; it denies the minimal, reasonable effect of an appeal. Common Pitfalls: Confusing advisory communication with enforcement plans; adding unstated policy measures. Final Answer: Only conclusion I follows

Question 6

Policy Evaluation — Space Research vs. National Needs Statement: • The Minister questioned the utility of the space research programme and suggested replacing it with areas of felt national needs. Which conclusion(s) logically follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We have a policy statement: a minister doubts the utility of a space programme and proposes redirecting resources to areas of urgent national need. We must determine which conclusions are supported. Given Data / Assumptions: The minister explicitly “questioned the utility” of space research. He suggested “replacement” by projects aligned with felt national needs. No data are given about the objective contribution of space research; only the minister's stance is known. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I (“Exploring space does not contribute to critical national needs”) is a universal factual claim. The minister's opinion does not make it universally true. Conclusion II (“Research should be oriented to national needs”) restates the policy direction implied by the suggestion to replace the programme with nationally needed areas. Step-by-Step Solution: Interpret the suggestion: replacement implies a preference that research align with national needs.Distinguish opinion from fact: doubting utility does not prove lack of contribution universally.Hence, only the normative statement in II follows from the minister's recommendation. Verification / Alternative check: Even if space research contributes indirectly, a policy choice can still prioritize nearer-term needs; II remains consistent with the statement, while I overreaches into an unproven universal. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I alone or Both: I is not established factually. Either / Neither: II clearly follows from the recommendation. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a minister's skepticism with a proven general truth; mixing prescriptive policy with descriptive claims. Final Answer: Only conclusion II follows

Question 7

Maxim and Inference — “The secret of success is constancy of purpose.” Which conclusion(s) are justified?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The aphorism states that unwavering focus (constancy of purpose) underpins success. We must decide which conclusion logically resonates with this thesis without importing unrelated proverbs or claims. Given Data / Assumptions: Core idea: success correlates with steady, persistent pursuit of a goal. No claim is made about physical processes or unrelated sayings. Concept / Approach: Conclusion II (“Single-minded devotion is necessary for achieving success.”) captures the intended meaning of constancy of purpose. Conclusion I (“Constant dripping wears the stone.”) is an independent proverb; it shares a persistence theme but is not a logical consequence of the given statement. Step-by-Step Solution: Map the aphorism to a generalizable requirement: focused persistence.Evaluate conclusions: II restates the requirement; I introduces a different metaphor not entailed.Hence, only II follows. Verification / Alternative check: Even if I is thematically aligned, logical following requires entailment from the given statement, not mere similarity in theme. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I alone or Both: I is not deduced from the given sentence. Either / Neither: II is a direct restatement and thus follows. Common Pitfalls: Equating thematic resonance with logical entailment; importing external sayings. Final Answer: Only conclusion II follows

Question 8

Practice vs. Preaching — Language Medium Hypocrisy Statement: • Leaders who loudly advocate Hindi typically send their children to English-medium schools. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement contrasts public advocacy (promoting Hindi) with private choices (sending children to English-medium schools). We must decide which conclusion is supported by this inconsistency. Given Data / Assumptions: The leaders publicly argue for Hindi usage. The same leaders choose English-medium schooling for their own children. No information is given about the quality or availability of Hindi-medium schools. Concept / Approach: Conclusion II (“There is a world of difference between preaching and practising.”) is a classic inference: the described behavior contradicts the public stance, indicating hypocrisy or inconsistency. Conclusion I (“India lacks good Hindi-medium schools.”) introduces a cause that is not stated; the behavior could have multiple reasons (perceived career advantage, proximity, personal preference, etc.). Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the only certain takeaway: inconsistency between advocacy and action.Avoid causal speculation about school quality absent evidence.Therefore, only conclusion II follows. Verification / Alternative check: Even if some leaders cite quality issues, the statement itself does not provide that justification, so we cannot adopt it as a conclusion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I alone / Both: require extra assumptions. Either / Neither: II clearly follows from the presented inconsistency. Common Pitfalls: Reading motives into behavior without explicit support. Final Answer: Only conclusion II follows

Question 9

Ethical Norm — Dowry and Respect for Womanhood Statement: • Any young man who makes dowry a condition for marriage discredits himself and dishonours womanhood. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement condemns demanding dowry as a condition for marriage, branding it discrediting and dishonouring. We must decide which conclusion(s) logically align with this ethical assertion. Given Data / Assumptions: Demanding dowry as a marriage condition is morally wrong per the statement. The phrasing suggests social disapproval for such conduct. No converse claim is made about those who do not demand dowry. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I (“Those who take dowry in marriage should be condemned by society.”) reasonably follows from the evaluative language “discredits” and “dishonours,” implying deserving of condemnation. Conclusion II (“Those who do not take dowry respect womanhood.”) does not necessarily follow; refraining from a wrong act does not alone guarantee full positive virtue, and the statement gives no such guarantee. Step-by-Step Solution: Map evaluative terms to social response: discrediting/dishonouring ⇒ worthy of censure.Avoid illicit converse: absence of vice is not explicitly equated with virtue in the statement.Therefore, only I follows. Verification / Alternative check: Even if many would agree with II morally, it is not a logical consequence of the given sentence; it would require additional premises about what constitutes “respect.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: II alone / Both: attribute a positive virtue beyond the statement. Either / Neither: I does follow given the normative language used. Common Pitfalls: Assuming contrapositive or converse in value statements without support. Final Answer: Only conclusion I follows

Question 10

Law and Corruption — Interpreting Causal Claims Statement: • The 'Official Secrets Act' (OSA) enacted by the ABC government during the war seems to be one of the major sources of corruption in country X. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement claims the OSA “seems to be one of the major sources” of corruption. We must assess two strong conclusions: abolish OSA to end corruption, and that the enacting government intended to encourage corruption. Given Data / Assumptions: OSA is presented as a probable contributor, among others, to corruption. No claim is made that OSA is the only source. No claim is made about the ABC government's intent at enactment. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I (“abolish OSA to put an end to corruption”) assumes OSA is both necessary and sufficient for corruption. The statement only says “one of the major sources,” so removing it may reduce but not end corruption. Conclusion II imputes intent; the statement gives no evidence about motive. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify modality: “seems” and “one of” indicate uncertainty and plurality of causes.Evaluate I: ending corruption entirely does not follow from removing a single contributing source.Evaluate II: alleging corrupt intent is unwarranted without explicit evidence. Verification / Alternative check: Even if OSA were abolished, other sources could persist; likewise, wartime enactment could have legitimate security motives. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I / Only II / Either / Both: each overstates beyond the cautious, plural-cause phrasing. Common Pitfalls: Confusing contributory cause with sole cause; inferring intent from outcomes. Final Answer: Neither I nor II follows

Question 11

National Priorities — Emphasis on Productive Sectors Statement: • In India, more emphasis should be placed on agriculture, engineering, and technology instead of basic and pure sciences. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement is a policy recommendation to shift emphasis toward agriculture, engineering, and technology (generally seen as productivity-linked fields). We must decide which conclusions are justified. Given Data / Assumptions: A prescriptive “should” about sectoral emphasis. No explicit evaluation of the current level of achievement in basic/pure sciences. Implied motivation: enhance productivity and practical outcomes. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I (“India has achieved sufficient progress in basic and pure sciences.”) is not stated or implied; the recommendation could stem from need, opportunity cost, or strategic priorities, not necessarily “sufficient progress.” Conclusion II (“In the past, the productivity factor in our economy was neglected.”) is consistent with the call to re-emphasize applied, productivity-oriented areas and can be reasonably inferred as the rationale for the shift. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize prescriptive shift ⇒ correct perceived imbalance.Translate to likely rationale: insufficient past focus on productivity.Reject unstated claim of adequacy in basic science progress. Verification / Alternative check: A nation may under-emphasize productive application without having “sufficient” basic science achievement; the two are independent. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I alone / Both / Either: I is unsupported. Neither: II is a reasonable implied rationale for the policy shift. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a recommendation implies excellence elsewhere; mistaking policy trade-offs as proof of achievement. Final Answer: Only conclusion II follows

Question 12

Logic — Conditional Winning Statement Statements: • If all players play to their full potential, we will win the match. • We have won the match. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a classic conditional reasoning problem. We have: If (all play to full potential) then (win). We also know the team won. What can we deduce about whether all played to full potential? Given Data / Assumptions: Conditional: All_full_potential ⇒ Win. Fact: Win occurred. No biconditional is stated (i.e., “Win iff all_full_potential” is not given). Concept / Approach: From P ⇒ Q and Q, you cannot infer P. This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Winning could have resulted from other causes (opponent weakness, luck, strategy) even if some players did not reach full potential. Step-by-Step Solution: Represent: If A then W; observe W.Invalid inference: W ⇒ A (not justified).Thus, neither “All played to their full potential” nor “Some did not” is entailed by the given statements alone. Verification / Alternative check: Construct scenarios: (1) All played great ⇒ win (fits). (2) Not all played great but still win (also fits). Both satisfy the premises, so neither conclusion is forced. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I follows: commits affirming the consequent. II follows: asserts the negation without basis. Either / Both: mutually inconsistent and unsupported. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “sufficient condition” with “necessary condition.” Final Answer: Neither I nor II follows

Question 13

Market Action and Criticism — Interpreting Policy from Reactions Statement: • The Bank of England's auction of 25 metric tons of gold drew many bargain-seeking bidders but was criticised by major gold producers worldwide. Which conclusion(s) follow?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We must evaluate two prescriptive conclusions from a report: one central bank auctioned gold; producers criticised it; there was strong bidding. Do these facts justify policy prescriptions about not auctioning or urging bidders to quote higher prices? Given Data / Assumptions: Auction happened; attracted many bidders. Major producers criticised the move. No explicit intent of the Bank regarding international price stability is stated. No instruction or expectation about bidders’ pricing behavior is given. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I (“The Bank should not auction gold to keep prices steady”) adds a policy goal not stated and assumes causation between the auction and global price instability. Conclusion II (“Bidders should quote higher prices to retain present value”) assigns responsibility to bidders to manage international price levels, which is not implied by the report. Step-by-Step Solution: Note: criticism by producers does not by itself determine the optimal central bank policy.Recognize: bidding levels reflect market behavior, not a mandate about defending international price benchmarks.Hence, neither conclusion is warranted. Verification / Alternative check: Even if auctions can influence prices, the statement alone does not specify objectives or outcomes needed to justify either conclusion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I / Only II / Either / Both: each imports objectives and duties not in the statement. Common Pitfalls: Inferring policy imperatives from stakeholder reactions; assuming markets ought to behave to preserve prices. Final Answer: Neither I nor II follows

Question 14

Analytical Reasoning – Evaluate the conclusions from the given statement Statement: Good voice is a natural gift; however, one must keep practising to improve and excel in the field of music.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This critical-reasoning item tests how to read a normative statement and decide which conclusions necessarily follow. The statement has two parts: first, a condition about a “good voice” being a natural gift; second, a requirement that practice is needed to improve and excel in music. We are asked to judge two conclusions: I) Natural gifts need nurturing and care. II) Even if your voice is not good, you can simply keep practising (and that suffices). Given Data / Assumptions: A “good voice” is a natural gift. Practice is required to improve and excel. No claim is made about people with a poor voice being able to reach excellence solely through practice. Concept / Approach: Translate the author’s intent into logical implications. The sentence asserts that possession of a natural gift alone is not enough; it must be cultivated through consistent practice. That idea supports the broader principle that natural gifts require nurturing. However, it does not assert that practice can replace the absence of the gift, nor that practice alone guarantees excellence for anyone regardless of starting point. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the necessary reading: “must keep practising to improve and excel” applies to gifted individuals, reinforcing the need to nurture the gift.Check Conclusion I: “Natural gifts need nurturing and care.” This matches the core message; it follows.Check Conclusion II: “Even though your voice is not good, one can keep practising.” The text never generalizes success for those lacking the gift; it does not claim practice compensates fully for the absence of a good voice. Verification / Alternative check: Try a counterexample for II: Someone without a good voice may practise but still not excel; the statement gives no assurance otherwise. Hence II does not logically follow. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B: Accepts II, which is not guaranteed.C: “Either … or …” is incorrect because I follows while II does not.D: Both rejected would ignore the clear support for I.E: Both accepted adds an unsupported claim about II. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a necessary aid to a gift (practice) with a universal remedy for lack of the gift. Final Answer: Only conclusion I follows

Question 15

Critical Thinking – What follows from the proverb? Statement: “Adversity makes a man wise.” Determine which conclusion is logically supported.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Proverbs encode specific ideas. “Adversity makes a man wise” focuses on the educational impact of hardship, not on social class. We must evaluate two conclusions: I) The poor are wise. II) Man learns from bitter experience. The correct reading preserves the proverb’s intended scope and avoids unwarranted generalizations about poverty. Given Data / Assumptions: Adversity = hardship, difficulty, bitter experiences. The statement concerns the effect of hardship on wisdom. No explicit reference is made to wealth, poverty, or social class. Concept / Approach: Map the proverb to a general causal relation: adversity —> wisdom. While many poor people may face adversity, the proverb does not equate poverty with adversity nor guarantee wisdom to a group by economic status. It instead implies that difficult experiences can teach valuable lessons, which is captured by conclusion II. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess I: “The poor are wise.” This leaps from adversity to poverty as a defining criterion. The statement makes no such identification and therefore I does not follow.Assess II: “Man learns from bitter experience.” This is a near-paraphrase of the proverb’s claim that hardship educates, so II follows. Verification / Alternative check: Counterexample to I: A person may be poor without facing formative adversity that yields wisdom; conversely, a wealthy person may experience adversity (e.g., illness) and become wiser. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: Accepts I, which is unsupported.C: “Either” is incorrect because II clearly follows and I does not.D: Rejecting both ignores the proverb’s evident meaning captured by II.E: Accepting both wrongly includes I. Common Pitfalls: Equating adversity with poverty, or treating a figurative statement as a categorical statement about a demographic group. Final Answer: Only conclusion II follows

Question 16

Decision & Selection – Limits of interviews and expert panels Statement: The interview panel may select a candidate who possesses neither the desired qualifications nor the expected values and attributes. Judge the conclusions.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Recruitment reasoning questions often probe the reliability of selection mechanisms. Here, the statement concedes that an interview panel may choose an unsuitable candidate (lacking both qualifications and values). We test two conclusions: I) Having specialists on the panel does not guarantee a proper selection. II) The interview test has limitations in selecting candidates. Given Data / Assumptions: An interview panel can reach an incorrect selection. The panel may include experts (specialists). Improper selections can result from limitations in the interview method or panel judgement. Concept / Approach: If a process can yield a wrong outcome, then the presence of expertise does not make correctness guaranteed. Also, an admission that an interview may select an unsuitable candidate directly indicates that the interview method has limits in predicting fit. Step-by-Step Solution: From the statement: “may select” an unqualified candidate —> there is non-zero failure probability.Conclusion I: Specialists do not ensure correctness every time. This follows from the observed fallibility.Conclusion II: The interview has limitations. If unsuitable candidates can be selected, the method is not perfectly reliable—this follows as well. Verification / Alternative check: Consider perfect guarantees: If interviews with specialists guaranteed proper selection, the described error would be impossible. Since the error is possible, both conclusions stand. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A or B alone ignores one of the clear implications.C: “Either” is wrong since both follow.D: Denying both contradicts the core statement. Common Pitfalls: Treating expert presence as infallible; confusing “best practice” with “guarantee.” Final Answer: Both I and II follow

Question 17

Political Logic – Interpreting intent without overreach Statement: The president of the XYZ Party stated that 25 independent MLAs are seriously considering options of joining some political party, and in any case they will all join one party collect…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks for over-interpretation. The statement signals two things: (1) the independents are exploring options, and (2) they will join the same party, but it does not specify which party or the timing. We must not assume facts not in evidence when evaluating conclusions I and II that name a specific outcome and timeframe. Given Data / Assumptions: 25 independents are deliberating. They intend to join one party collectively. Neither the party’s identity nor a short deadline is provided. Concept / Approach: Conclusions must be necessitated by the statement. Predicting which party (XYZ vs. “some other”) or promising “in a short period” goes beyond the given. The only safe inference is that a joint move is contemplated—not which destination nor when. Step-by-Step Solution: Check I: “They will join XYZ shortly.” The source is an XYZ leader, but the statement does not claim they will choose XYZ or specify “shortly.” Not supported.Check II: “They will join some other party shortly.” Again, no party or timeframe is specified. Not supported. Verification / Alternative check: Construct scenarios: They could join XYZ, another party, or reconsider; timing might be short or long. The statement alone does not settle these variables. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option that affirms I or II assumes facts (identity/time) not stated. Common Pitfalls: Assuming partisan statements guarantee outcomes; reading “considering options” as “decision made.” Final Answer: Neither I nor II follows

Question 18

Interpreting a philosophical claim – What really follows? Statement: “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.” Determine which conclusion is logically supported.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The sentence is a classic expression of intellectual humility (often associated with Socratic thought). The speaker claims personal ignorance, not a universal thesis about the scope of all human knowledge. We must choose between: I) The writer’s knowledge is very poor. II) The world of knowledge is too vast for one person to explore fully. Given Data / Assumptions: Speaker asserts self-ignorance (“I know nothing except my ignorance”). There is no explicit statement about the total scope of knowledge in the world. We should avoid attributing a broad epistemic thesis without textual support. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I paraphrases the speaker’s self-assessment, i.e., poor knowledge. Conclusion II introduces a universal claim about the vastness of knowledge—a plausible thought, but not stated or implied as the reason for the claim. Step-by-Step Solution: From the statement, infer the minimal claim: the writer considers their own knowledge negligible.Hence I follows: “Writer’s knowledge is very poor.”II does not follow because the statement does not generalize to the world’s knowledge being too vast; such an inference would need an extra premise. Verification / Alternative check: Attempt to defend II from the text alone fails; the sentence contains no mention of “world’s knowledge,” only a self-directed admission. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B: Accepts II which lacks textual basis.C and E: Include II; hence incorrect.D: Rejects I despite the explicit self-description. Common Pitfalls: Letting background philosophy color the inference; sticking to what is entailed by the line itself is key. Final Answer: Only conclusion I follows

Question 19

Advertisement Logic – What can be concluded from a quality claim? Statement: Company X has a record of manufacturing cameras with high quality and the latest design so that you do not spoil even a single shot irrespective of weather conditions.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Marketing statements often combine reputation with a performance promise. Here, Company X claims such quality that users “do not spoil even a single shot” regardless of weather. We must test two conclusions: I) No other company is reputed in cameras except X. II) Anyone can take an acceptable shot with camera X. Given Data / Assumptions: Company X claims a strong track record and robust performance in all weather. No comparison with other brands’ reputations is provided. The performance claim is framed as universal for users. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I requires a comparative, market-wide assertion that the statement never makes. Conclusion II mirrors the advertised promise: if you “do not spoil even a single shot,” that implies any normal user can get an acceptable result. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess I: The text praises X but says nothing about competitors—so I does not follow.Assess II: The core message is user-level reliability, independent of weather. That maps to “anyone can take an acceptable shot with camera X.” Thus II follows as the intended implication of the ad. Verification / Alternative check: If II were false, the promise “do not spoil even a single shot” would be misleading. The reasonable exam inference is that such an explicit performance assurance is meant to be taken at face value. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A and E: Include I, which is unsupported.C: “Either” is wrong because only II follows.D: Rejects II despite the clear performance claim. Common Pitfalls: Assuming superlatives (only X is reputed) when the text merely asserts quality for X. Final Answer: Only conclusion II follows

Question 20

Policy Interpretation – Economy depends mainly on forests Statement: India’s economy is depending mainly on forests. Evaluate which conclusions follow.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: From a dependency statement, we can infer supportive policy actions that would strengthen the dependency pillar, but we should avoid extreme exclusivity claims. The statement says India’s economy depends mainly on forests, not solely. We test I) Trees should be preserved to improve India’s economy. II) India wants only maintenance of forests to improve economic conditions. Given Data / Assumptions: Forests are a major contributor to the economy. No assertion is made that forests are the only contributor. Conservation typically supports sustainability of a key resource. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I is a reasonable policy inference: preserving a principal resource aids the dependent economy. Conclusion II is an “only” claim that excludes other economic levers—trade, services, industry, agriculture—which is far stronger than the premise allows. Step-by-Step Solution: From “depends mainly,” infer importance and need for preservation—supports I.There is no basis for “only” in II; dependence “mainly” does not equal “exclusively.” Verification / Alternative check: Consider India’s diversified economy (agriculture, services, industry); even if forests are a major pillar, others exist. Hence II fails. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B: Accepts II, which overstates the claim.C and E: Include II incorrectly.D: Rejects I despite its direct policy logic. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “mainly” with “only,” a classic trap in logical interpretation questions. Final Answer: Only conclusion I follows

Statement and Conclusion Questions