Question 1

Statement — A constitutional amendment (passed last month) prohibits employing child labour in any organization. Question — Which conclusion necessarily follows?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A constitutional amendment has legal force. The question asks what must follow from such a change, distinguishing between legal compliance and broader social outcomes like schooling participation. Given Data / Assumptions: Amendment: employing child labour (below the threshold, typically 14 years) is prohibited. Organizations and employees must comply with constitutional provisions. No immediate guarantee is given about school enrollment behavior. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I — “Employees must now abide by this amendment” — follows as a matter of legal obligation. Conclusion II — “Children below 14 will now engage in education” — is aspirational and may require implementation capacity, access, and enforcement; it is not a necessary consequence of the amendment text alone. Step-by-Step Solution: I: Legal compliance is mandated by constitutional authority; hence it follows.II: While desirable, school enrollment depends on many factors (availability, family conditions, monitoring). Not a necessary implication. Verification / Alternative check: One can imagine a locality with inadequate schools; the amendment still binds employers, but II may not yet hold. Thus only I must follow. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option asserting II (alone or with I) claims more than the statement warrants. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a legal prohibition with a guaranteed behavioral outcome across society. Final Answer: if only Conclusions I follows

Question 2

Statement — Many business offices are in buildings with two to eight floors. Rule — If a building has more than three floors, then that building has a lift (elevator). Question — Which conclusion is necessarily true?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We must apply a conditional rule: floors > 3 → has lift. The task is to select the logically compelled consequence, not speculative statements about coverage of floors or buildings with ≤ 3 floors. Given Data / Assumptions: Domain: office buildings with 2–8 floors. Conditional: If a building’s floor-count > 3, then the building has a lift. No promises are made for 2- or 3-floor buildings. Concept / Approach: For any building to “have a fifth floor,” its floor-count is at least five, hence > 3. Therefore, by the rule, it must have a lift. Claims about “only above third” or “all floors reachable” exceed the given information. Step-by-Step Solution: Option A: Overreach; the rule states existence of a lift, not its reach.Option B: Adds a restriction (“only”) not present in the rule.Option C: Direct application of the conditional; compelled.Option D: Talks about 2 floors (≤ 3), which the rule leaves open.Option E: Incorrect since C follows. Verification / Alternative check: Any 5-, 6-, 7-, or 8-floor building must satisfy the antecedent and therefore has a lift. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A and B invent details; D asserts a negative beyond scope. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “has a lift” with operational details like which floors are served. Final Answer: Any building that has a fifth floor necessarily has a lift.

Question 3

Statement — All guilty politicians were arrested. Ranjan and Kamlesh were among those arrested. Question — What follows necessarily?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The stem gives a sufficient condition for arrest within a set: “guilty politicians → arrested.” It does not say everyone arrested is a politician, nor that all politicians are guilty. We must reason about two named arrestees. Given Data / Assumptions: All guilty politicians were arrested. Ranjan and Kamlesh are within the arrested set. Implicitly, the context concerns politicians (per wording). Concept / Approach: If the arrest list is exactly those guilty politicians (standard reading of such items), then being “among those arrested” entails being a guilty politician. The safe necessary inference about the two named individuals is that they were guilty (within the described sweep). Step-by-Step Solution: A: Overstates; not all politicians are necessarily guilty.B: Overgeneralizes the arrested set beyond politicians.C: Contradicts the political context.D: Matches the intended consequent about those arrested.E: Not applicable since D follows. Verification / Alternative check: On typical exam logic, “all guilty politicians were arrested; X and Y were among those arrested” → X and Y are within the guilty politician set used for arrest. Final Answer: Ranjan and Kamlesh were guilty.

Question 4

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

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is the same syllogistic pattern earlier: “All S are I; Kaushik is not I.” Contraposition yields that Kaushik cannot be in S (the class). Avoid global generalizations beyond “my class.” Given Data / Assumptions: S = students in my class; I = intelligent. All S → I; Kaushik is ¬I. Concept / Approach: If membership in S guarantees I, then ¬I entails ¬S for that individual. Hence Kaushik ∉ S. Step-by-Step Solution: A contradicts the universal “All S are I.”B overgeneralizes beyond “my class.”C is the necessary conclusion by contraposition.D introduces a universal claim about “all others”; not provided. Final Answer: Kaushik is not a student of my class

Question 5

Statements — (A) Karan Johar is a good director. (B) Directors are intelligent. Question — What follows?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: From “Karan Johar is a good director,” we know he is a director. With “Directors are intelligent,” we can infer that Karan Johar is intelligent. We must avoid reversing the implication. Given Data / Assumptions: KJ ∈ Directors. All Directors → Intelligent. Concept / Approach: Universal instantiation: if all members of a set have a property, any specific member has it. Option Check: A asserts “All intelligent are directors” (converse); not supported.B follows directly.C includes A, so fails.D is incorrect because B follows. Final Answer: Karan Johar is intelligent

Question 6

Statement — Most of the mobile phones in that shop are costly. Question — Which conclusion is necessarily true?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Most” means more than half. From this, we can safely infer the existence of at least one costly phone. Claims about specific brands or about zero cheap phones go beyond the data. Given Data / Assumptions: Quantifier: Most phones in the shop are costly. No specific brand is mentioned. Concept / Approach: Existential inference: “Most P are Q” entails “Some P are Q.” Whether some are cheap cannot be concluded with absolute certainty in strict syllogistic terms here; the only safe necessity is “some costly exist.” Option Check: A necessarily follows (existence of costly items).B introduces a brand; unsupported.C contradicts possibility that some may be cheap.D might be plausible under common usage of “most,” but the logically guaranteed inference required is A. Final Answer: Some of the mobile phones in that shop are costly

Question 7

Statements — I) Ravi has five pens. II) No one else in the class has five pens. Question — Which conclusion follows?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We are given an exact count for Ravi and an exclusivity clause (“no one else … has five pens”). We must pick which conclusion is compelled from the list provided (I–IV in the original text), where IV is “Only one student in the class has exactly five pens.” Why IV follows: Ravi has exactly five pens. No other student has exactly five pens. Therefore, exactly one student (Ravi) has five pens — which is Conclusion IV. Why I–III do not follow: I (“All students have pens”): not stated; some may have none. II (“All students have five pens each”): contradicts the exclusivity clause. III (“Some students have more than five pens”): not given; others could have fewer than five or none. Final Answer: Conclusion IV

Question 8

Statement — “To pass the examination one must work hard.” Question — Which conclusion is most strictly entailed?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The sentence expresses a necessity condition: work hard is required for passing. We must distinguish what such a necessity entails and what it does not. Analysis of the Conclusions: I (“Examination is related with hard work”): Broadly true, but vague; “related” is not the precise logical counterpart of a necessary condition. II (“All those who work hard pass”): Confuses necessity with sufficiency. Working hard is required but may not guarantee passing. III (“Exam causes anxiety… and hard work overcomes it”): Introduces new notions (anxiety) absent from the stem. IV (“Without hard work, one does not pass”): This is the exact contrapositive of the given necessity and hence strictly follows. Final Answer: Conclusions IV

Question 9

Argument — “This book can help because all good books help.” Question — Which conclusion follows most directly?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The sentence is an argument that cites a universal generalization (“all good books help”) to justify a particular claim about “this book” (“can help”). The warrant works only if “this book” is treated as a member of the class “good books.” Logical Reading: General rule: If something is a good book, then it helps. Claim about this item: “This book can help because all good books help.” Implied bridge: “This book is a good book.” Conclusion Mapping: II (“This is a good book”) — is the tacit premise being appealed to; adopting it makes the inference valid. IV (“Some good books help”) — while likely true, the stem’s reasoning is not about existence but about categorizing this specific book using a universal rule. I (“This is not a good book”) and III (“No good book help”) contradict the stated universal and the use of it as support. Final Answer: Conclusions II

Question 10

Statements: I. Education is a process of lighting. II. The mind requires light to enlighten the core of the 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: Statement–Conclusion questions test whether a conclusion follows strictly from the given statements without importing outside facts. Here, education is metaphorically equated with lighting, and the mind is said to need light to enlighten its cognitive core. We must decide whether each conclusion necessarily follows from these premises. Given Data / Assumptions: Education is described as a process of lighting (dynamic, ongoing activity). The mind requires light to enlighten its cognitive core. Light vs darkness is a standard metaphor for knowledge vs ignorance. Concept / Approach: Map metaphors consistently. If education is a process of lighting and the mind needs light for enlightenment, then education provides the light that dispels the mind’s darkness (ignorance). Also, a process of lighting is dynamic, not static. Any claim of static nature would contradict the premise that emphasizes process. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) From Statement I: education = process (ongoing) of lighting.2) From Statement II: the mind needs light to enlighten its core.3) If education supplies light, and light enlightens the mind, then education removes mental darkness → Conclusion I follows.4) Because education is described as a process, calling it static contradicts the depiction → Conclusion II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Replace the word process with state; only then would static be plausible. Since the text explicitly uses a process metaphor (lighting), static is incompatible. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II: contradicts the process idea. Both: cannot hold because II fails. Neither: ignores the clear entailment of I. Any option suggesting II is consistent with the statements misreads the word process. Common Pitfalls: Treating evocative metaphors as vague. In reasoning tests, metaphors used systematically (light/darkness for knowledge/ignorance) carry logical weight when consistently applied within the given premises. Final Answer: Only Conclusion I follows.

Question 11

Statements: I. Best performance in the Olympics fetches a gold medal. II. Player X got a gold medal but later was found to be using a prohibited drug.  Conclusions: I. X should be allowed to keep the gold medal. II. The gold medal should be withdraw…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Competitive sport operates on the rule that awards are contingent on fair play. The statements assert that gold reflects best performance and add that athlete X tested positive for a prohibited drug after receiving gold. We examine which conclusion is compelled by these premises without relying on external sporting codes by name. Given Data / Assumptions: Gold is awarded for the best performance. X used a prohibited drug, discovered after receiving gold. Use of a prohibited drug invalidates the performance as a fair contest result (implicit in the meaning of prohibited). Concept / Approach: When the premise includes the term prohibited drug, it implicitly asserts an illegitimate advantage that vitiates the status of best performance. The core entitlement to gold evaporates if the winning mark was achieved under prohibition violation. Therefore, the logical corrective is withdrawal and reassignment, not retention. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Best performance → gold (Statement I).2) X’s performance used a prohibited means (Statement II).3) A performance tainted by prohibited means cannot qualify as best in the legitimate sense → X’s entitlement fails.4) The rightful gold should therefore pass to the next eligible athlete → Conclusion II follows; Conclusion I does not. Verification / Alternative check: Suppose prohibited had no effect on entitlement; then prohibited would be irrelevant. That contradicts the conventional force of the word prohibited embedded in the premise itself. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or Both: deny the normative effect of prohibition. Neither: ignores the premise’s clear implication that an invalidating condition occurred. Common Pitfalls: Appealing to sympathy or non-logical considerations (e.g., crowd favor or prior career) which are outside the given statements. Final Answer: Only Conclusion II follows.

Question 12

Statements: I. There are monks among those who are felicitated for remarkable social service. II. Jitananda and Vidyananda are among those felicitated.  Conclusions: I. Jitananda and Vidyananda did remarkable social service. II. All monks do social …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We are given two set-membership statements: (1) the felicitation set consists of people recognized for remarkable social service and includes some monks; (2) two named individuals, Jitananda and Vidyananda, belong to the felicitation set. We must test which conclusions necessarily follow. Given Data / Assumptions: Felicitation Set F = persons felicitated for remarkable social service. Some members of F are monks. Jitananda and Vidyananda ∈ F. Concept / Approach: From the definition of F, membership in F implies the property “did remarkable social service.” Therefore any named member of F inherits that property. However, the statements do not quantify monks beyond saying “there are monks among those felicitated.” That does not mean all monks do social service or that all monks are felicitated; nor does it tell us whether the two named individuals are monks or not. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Since J and V are in F, and all in F are felicitated for social service, J and V did remarkable social service → Conclusion I follows.2) Statement I does not state “all monks,” only that “there are monks” in F → Conclusion II does not follow.3) Nothing indicates J and V are not monks (or are monks) → Conclusion III does not follow.4) “There are monks in F” does not imply “all monks are in F” → Conclusion IV does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Create a simple Venn diagram: F overlaps with the set of monks but is not identical to it. The named individuals lie inside F; their monk status is unspecified. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options selecting II, III, or IV assume universality or negation not warranted by the premises. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “some” with “all” and assuming properties not specified for named members. Final Answer: Conclusion I.

Question 13

Statements: I. Science has brought gadgets associated with happiness, prosperity, and wealth. II. Science has not solved the problems of overpopulation.  Conclusions: I. Overpopulation is due to unscientific thinking. II. Science has not helped worl…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The pair of statements contrasts technological benefits with a persistent societal problem. The task is to avoid importing external narratives about causes of overpopulation or world peace and to stick to what is strictly supported by the text. Given Data / Assumptions: Science has delivered material benefits (gadgets, prosperity-related tools). Overpopulation remains unsolved by science. No claim is made about the root causes of overpopulation. No claim is made about science’s role in peace or conflict. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I alleges a specific cause (unscientific thinking) for overpopulation. The premises only say science has not solved the problem; they do not specify why the problem exists. Conclusion II makes a sweeping claim about world peace that the premises never address. Therefore, neither conclusion is entailed. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the scope: benefits delivered vs one problem left unsolved.2) Check Conclusion I: cause attribution is absent → does not follow.3) Check Conclusion II: peace dimension is not mentioned → does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Even if science had helped peace or hindered it, the truth of the given statements would be unchanged; thus Conclusion II is independent and ungrounded in the text. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options that accept I or II import external causal claims not present in the premises. Common Pitfalls: Overextending premises to fit common debates (e.g., technology vs society) rather than the given logical content. Final Answer: Neither Conclusion I nor II follows.

Question 14

Statements: I. Conflicts in the mind create tension. II. Resolution of conflict leads to good mental health.  Conclusions: I. One becomes very hefty and physically strong by resolving one's conflicts. II. Freedom from conflict leads to good mental h…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The premises connect internal psychological conflict with tension and assert that resolving such conflict yields good mental health. We examine two conclusions: one about physical strength and one about mental health. Given Data / Assumptions: Mental conflict → tension. Conflict resolution → good mental health. No information about physical stature or muscular strength. Concept / Approach: Conclusion II restates the essence of Statement II in slightly different words and therefore follows. Conclusion I introduces an unrelated attribute (hefty/physically strong), which is not addressed in the premises and cannot be inferred from them. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Align terms: conflict resolution pertains to mental health, not physique.2) Accept II as a paraphrase of the given causal link.3) Reject I due to absence of any physical-strength premise. Verification / Alternative check: Even if someone remains physically weak, conflict resolution could still improve mental health; the premises are independent of bodily strength. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or Both: inject an extra dimension (physical strength) not mentioned. Neither: ignores the direct entailment of II. Common Pitfalls: Conflating psychological well-being with somatic attributes. Final Answer: Only Conclusion II follows.

Question 15

Statements: I. Water has shape and volume. II. Knowledge is like water; it flows from one side to another.  Conclusions: I. Knowledge is interdisciplinary (it can flow across domains). II. Knowledge is bound within a specific area. III. Knowledge di…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Two analogical statements compare knowledge to water: water has definite physical properties, and knowledge, like water, flows from one side to another. The task is to determine which conclusions necessarily flow from this analogy. Given Data / Assumptions: Analogy: knowledge behaves like water in its capacity to flow/move. Flow implies transfer, spread, and crossing boundaries. No direct statement about knowledge acting on the mind’s core in this item. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I captures the intended force of the flow metaphor: if knowledge can “flow,” it can traverse disciplines, contexts, or domains—i.e., it is interdisciplinary. Conclusion II contradicts the flow idea by asserting confinement to a specific area; hence it does not follow. Conclusion III introduces a new claim (direct influence on the core of mental activity) not provided by the premises; while plausible in general, it is not entailed by the analogy as stated here. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Interpret flow as transferability across boundaries.2) Therefore, interdisciplinarity (I) follows.3) Confinement (II) negates flow → reject.4) Influence on mental core (III) is not mentioned → reject. Verification / Alternative check: Consider knowledge that is siloed; that would contradict the comparison to water’s natural tendency to flow and take the shape of its container. Why Other Options Are Wrong: II conflicts with the premise; III lacks textual support in this specific item. Common Pitfalls: Reading additional educational psychology claims into a narrow analogy question. Final Answer: Only Conclusion I follows.

Question 16

Statement: Vegetable prices are soaring in the market.  Conclusions: I. Vegetables are becoming a rare commodity. II. People cannot eat vegetables.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The premise reports a price rise. Price movements reflect demand-supply dynamics, costs, or market structure, but a mere statement of higher prices does not, by itself, prove rarity or impossibility of consumption. Given Data / Assumptions: Observation: vegetable prices are soaring. No data on supply levels, availability, or consumer income. No assertion that consumption has become impossible. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I (rarity) would require evidence of low availability relative to demand; higher prices can arise from many factors (transport costs, seasonal patterns, speculation) without scarcity at the retail shelf. Conclusion II (people cannot eat vegetables) is a very strong claim not supported by a price rise alone; affordability varies by consumer and by degree of price change. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify that the statement is descriptive (price level), not diagnostic (cause) or prescriptive (effect on diets).2) Recognize that both rarity and impossibility of consumption require additional premises not provided.3) Therefore, neither conclusion follows. Verification / Alternative check: Even during temporary spikes, markets often continue to clear at higher prices; some consumers substitute, some reduce quantity, but the statement does not claim universal cessation of consumption. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Accepting I or II assumes facts not in evidence. Choosing either implies that a price level statement is sufficient to conclude scarcity or impossibility. Common Pitfalls: Equating price with physical availability and inferring absolute behavioral outcomes from relative price changes. Final Answer: If neither Conclusion I nor II follows.

Question 17

Statement: A friend in need is a friend indeed.  Conclusions: I. All people are friends in good times. II. Enemies in bad times are not friends.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The proverb defines a true friend as one who stands by you in need. We test two conclusions: a universal claim about good times and a clarifying negation about enemies in bad times. Given Data / Assumptions: Definition: the essence of friendship is help/support in times of need. No claim that everyone is a friend during prosperity. Enemies, by definition, are not friends, and certainly not those who help in need. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I extrapolates a universal statement (all are friends in good times) that is not implied by the proverb; the saying contrasts good-time acquaintances with true friends who persist in adversity. Conclusion II aligns with the definition: enemies in bad times do not meet the criterion of friendship and therefore are not friends. While II may seem tautological, it follows from the definition provided by the statement. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Parse the definition: friend-in-need = indeed a friend.2) There is no universal quantifier over people in good times → reject I.3) If someone is an enemy in adversity, they fail the need-based criterion → accept II. Verification / Alternative check: The proverb draws a boundary: many may seem friendly in prosperity, but the definition of true friendship is filtered by adversity. Enemies in adversity are outside that boundary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing I or either relies on overgeneralization of good-time behavior; selecting neither ignores the definitional exclusion in II. Common Pitfalls: Mistaking a normative definition for a descriptive statement about everyone’s behavior in good times. Final Answer: If Conclusion II follows.

Question 18

Statement: Quality has a price tag. India is allocating substantial funds to education.  Conclusions: I. The quality of education in India would improve soon. II. Funding alone can enhance the quality of education.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The pair of statements suggests a conditional linkage: if quality requires expenditure and the state is increasing expenditure, it is reasonable to infer an improvement trajectory. However, we must avoid overstating sufficiency claims not warranted by the premises. Given Data / Assumptions: Premise A: Quality entails cost (a price tag). Premise B: India is allocating substantial funds to education. No explicit claim that money is the only driver of quality. Concept / Approach: From A and B together, a reasonable logical inference is that spending addresses at least the cost component of quality, tending toward improvement (Conclusion I). Conclusion II is stronger: it asserts sufficiency of funding alone. The premises do not eliminate the need for governance, pedagogy, accountability, or implementation quality; thus II does not follow. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) A: quality requires resources; B: resources are being provided.2) Therefore an improvement tendency is implied → I follows.3) The word alone in II demands exclusivity; A and B do not establish that money by itself is sufficient → II fails. Verification / Alternative check: If funds were misallocated, improvement might lag; nevertheless, the inference that increased funding tackles a necessary component of quality remains the most direct reading, supporting I but not II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II or Both: overclaim sufficiency. Neither: ignores the natural implication that paying the price tag is a step toward quality. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a necessary condition (adequate funding) with a sufficient one (funding alone). Final Answer: If Conclusion I follows.

Question 19

Statement: Prostitution is also one of the main reasons for AIDS.  Conclusions: I. AIDS is an incurable disease. II. AIDS cannot be completely controlled by banning prostitution only.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement attributes AIDS transmission partly to prostitution by saying it is also one of the main reasons. We must determine which conclusions necessarily follow, avoiding medical information not provided in the premise. Given Data / Assumptions: AIDS has multiple main reasons; prostitution is among them. No information is provided about curability. The wording also implies there are other significant reasons beyond prostitution. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I (incurability) is outside the scope of the premise; curability relates to treatment outcomes, not causes. Conclusion II follows because if prostitution is only one among multiple main reasons, then eliminating prostitution alone cannot completely control AIDS; other transmission pathways would remain. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Parse also one of the main reasons → plurality of significant causes.2) Complete control by banning only one cause is logically insufficient → II follows.3) Curability (I) is a distinct dimension not addressed → I does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Even if prostitution were eliminated, control would still require addressing other major vectors (not specified here), hence complete control cannot be guaranteed by a single-action ban. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or Either/Both: import medical facts not present. Neither: ignores the logical effect of the phrase also one of the main reasons. Common Pitfalls: Confusing cause multiplicity with treatment efficacy; mixing domains of causation and cure. Final Answer: If only Conclusion II follows.

Question 20

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 in construction jobs.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a Statement–Conclusion item about eligibility restrictions in a tender notice. The statement specifies that sealed tenders are invited “from competent contractors experienced in executing construction jobs.” We must test which conclusions are logically compelled without importing outside facts about the market or the agency’s intent beyond what is expressed. Given Data / Assumptions: The issuing authority invites sealed tenders. Eligibility is stated as “competent contractors experienced in executing construction jobs.” No claim is made about the broader difficulty of finding competent contractors in the industry. Concept / Approach: When a tender notice explicitly restricts invitations “from experienced contractors,” the plain reading is that only experienced contractors may submit. A restrictive qualifier attached to the invitation functions as an eligibility filter. However, a statement about the difficulty of finding competent contractors would require evidence about supply conditions in the market—evidence not present in the statement. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Parse the restriction: “from competent contractors experienced …” = eligibility criterion.2) Conclusion I restates the restriction: only experienced contractors are invited → follows.3) Conclusion II asserts an industry-wide scarcity (“difficult to find competent tenders”). The statement is silent on market availability → does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Even if competent contractors are abundant, the buyer might still set an experience filter to assure quality. Thus, the truth of the statement does not depend on scarcity, undermining Conclusion II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Either” or “Both” accept an unsupported scarcity claim. “Neither” ignores the clear eligibility restriction explicitly stated. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a quality filter (experience requirement) with an inference about market difficulty or shortage. Final Answer: If only Conclusion I follows.

Statement and Conclusion Questions