Question 1

Statement: Nation X faced increased international opposition due to its decision to carry out eight nuclear explosions.  Conclusions: I. The citizens of Nation X favored the decision. II. Some powerful nations do not want other nations to become pow…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement reports a fact: international opposition increased after Nation X performed eight nuclear explosions. We must determine which conclusions necessarily follow from this diplomatic reaction without assuming internal public opinion or the detailed motives of every opposing nation beyond what is reasonably implied. Given Data / Assumptions: Action: eight nuclear explosions by Nation X. Effect: increased international opposition. No information is provided about the domestic stance of citizens in Nation X. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I concerns internal public opinion (citizens favored the decision). The statement offers no data about citizen sentiment; opposition from abroad does not entail support at home, so I does not follow. Conclusion II generalizes that some powerful nations resist other nations becoming powerful. International opposition to nuclear testing reasonably implies that at least some influential states oppose proliferation or capacity-building that alters power balances; thus, II is a reasonable inference constrained to “some,” not “all.” Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Opposition ≠ domestic approval; there is no link provided about citizens → I does not follow.2) International opposition to tests plausibly indicates resistance by influential states to capability expansion by others → II follows. Verification / Alternative check: If citizens were actually divided or opposed, the international reaction would still be as stated; hence I is independent and unsupported. But the existence of international opposition implies at least some states prefer others not to bolster nuclear capability—consistent with II’s “some.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Either/Both” overstate; “Neither” ignores the reasonable minimal inference in II; “Only I” relies on absent domestic data. Common Pitfalls: Assuming internal consensus from external reactions; overgeneralizing II to “all” nations (the conclusion wisely uses “some”). Final Answer: If only Conclusion II follows.

Question 2

Statement: The Chief Minister emphasized that the government will try its best for the development of farmers and the rural poor.  Conclusions: I. The former government had not tried seriously for the development of these groups. II. This government…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement is a forward-looking policy emphasis about farmers and the rural poor. It says nothing explicit about past governments, nor does it compare priorities between rural and urban poor for the current government. The task is to avoid reading extra implications not present in the text. Given Data / Assumptions: Present government: will “try its best” for farmers and rural poor. No evaluative statement about former governments. No statement denying help to the urban poor. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I imputes failure to the former government, a historical claim absent from the statement. Conclusion II asserts a negative commitment toward the urban poor, which is also not stated; prioritization of one group does not logically imply neglect of another unless explicitly stated. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify scope: current intent regarding rural beneficiaries.2) There is no premise about past performance → I does not follow.3) There is no premise about urban policy → II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Even if the government also plans robust urban programs, the statement would remain true; conversely, even if former governments did well, the statement’s promise stands. Hence neither conclusion is entailed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option that accepts I or II imports unstated comparisons or exclusions. Common Pitfalls: Assuming exclusivity (support for rural implies no urban support) or making historical inferences without text support. Final Answer: If neither I nor II follows.

Question 3

Statement: The U.S. Defense Secretary reiterated that the U.S. would continue to supply arms to Pakistan.  Conclusions: I. Pakistan is incapable of manufacturing arms. II. Continued arms supply will ensure peace in the region.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement is a policy reiteration about arms supply. It does not describe Pakistan’s industrial capability nor the strategic outcomes of the supply. Conclusions about capability or regional peace require additional premises not supplied here. Given Data / Assumptions: Policy: continued U.S. arms supply to Pakistan. Absent: information on Pakistan’s domestic arms manufacturing capacity. Absent: evidence that supply ensures peace (could deter or escalate—undetermined). Concept / Approach: Supply from an external partner does not imply domestic incapacity (importing can be strategic or complementary). Promising peace as a direct outcome is a causal claim absent from the text. Therefore, neither conclusion follows strictly. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify that both conclusions add new propositions not in the statement.2) Without supporting premises, I and II cannot be derived. Verification / Alternative check: If Pakistan had strong manufacturing, imports could still occur; if peace worsened or improved, the original statement remains a policy declaration. Hence independence from the conclusions confirms “neither.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: Accepting I or II assumes facts not provided (capability or peace causality). Common Pitfalls: Equating procurement with incapability; presuming specific geopolitical outcomes from a single policy line. Final Answer: If neither I nor II follows.

Question 4

Statement: The majority of Indian laborers belong to the unorganized sector and most of them earn very low incomes.  Conclusions: I. Laborers in the organized sector have better benefits and stability. II. Some laborers in the unorganized sector hav…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement provides two facts: sectoral distribution (majority in unorganized) and low earnings for most of those laborers. It does not discuss conditions in the organized sector nor exceptions within the unorganized sector. We must avoid stereotypical or background-knowledge assumptions that are not stated. Given Data / Assumptions: Majority of laborers → unorganized sector. Most among them → very low earnings. No claims about benefits/stability in organized sector. No claims about the existence of regular/certain income cases within unorganized sector. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I infers better benefits/stability in the organized sector; while often true in practice, it is not stated or logically entailed. Conclusion II posits a subset with regular income in the unorganized sector; the premise says “most” earn very low, but does not describe regularity/certainty; some could, but “may” is not “must.” Logical entailment demands necessity, not plausibility. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Stick to the text: distribution and low earnings—nothing about benefits or regularity.2) Therefore, neither I nor II is compelled. Verification / Alternative check: The statement would remain true even if organized-sector benefits were poor or if no unorganized worker had regular income. Hence both conclusions are independent and not derivable. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options asserting I or II convert plausibility into certainty. “Either” is invalid as neither is necessitated. Common Pitfalls: Letting real-world knowledge override the requirement of strict logical following from the given text. Final Answer: If neither I nor II follows.

Question 5

Statement: In deserts, camels are indispensable for people to travel from one place to another.  Conclusions: I. Camels are the only cheapest mode of transport available in deserts. II. There are plenty of camels in deserts.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement asserts indispensability of camels for desert travel, highlighting suitability and necessity. It does not quantify costs relative to all modes, nor does it estimate population counts of camels. We must judge what follows strictly from indispensability. Given Data / Assumptions: Camels are indispensable for desert travel. No premise on relative price vs other modes. No premise on the abundance (“plenty”) of camels. Concept / Approach: Indispensable means essential/necessary, not necessarily “only cheapest.” The claim “only cheapest” has two qualifiers (“only” and “cheapest”) neither of which appears in the statement. Similarly, indispensability does not imply population sufficiency; there could be scarcity with high demand but still essential use. Thus, neither conclusion is entailed. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Interpret “indispensable” as necessity for function.2) Distinguish cost and abundance from necessity → not stated.3) Hence, neither I nor II follows. Verification / Alternative check: If camels were expensive yet necessary, or few yet essential, the statement still holds. Therefore, both conclusions add content beyond the given premise. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any acceptance of I or II assumes extra-economic or demographic facts not provided. Common Pitfalls: Equating “indispensable” with “abundant” or “cheapest,” which are distinct attributes. Final Answer: If neither I nor II follow.

Question 6

Statement: He emphasized the need to replace the present training program with 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 p…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker calls for replacing the current training with methods that “will bring out the real merit of the managers.” This is both a value statement (merit is important) and a diagnostic critique (the present program fails to do this sufficiently), yielding two testable conclusions. Given Data / Assumptions: A need exists to replace the current training program. The stated purpose of replacement: bring out real merit. Implied judgment that current training falls short on this objective. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I is the explicit objective; if the speaker centers replacement on revealing merit, importance is implied. Conclusion II follows because replacement is advocated precisely due to the present program’s inadequacy in bringing out that merit; otherwise replacement on that ground would not be necessary. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The goal “bring out real merit” → I follows.2) If the present program already brought out real merit, no replacement for that reason would be needed → II follows. Verification / Alternative check: Suppose the present program were excellent at revealing merit; then the motivation to replace for that very reason would not exist. Therefore, II is logically embedded in the recommendation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Accepting only I or only II ignores the mutual reinforcement present in the statement; “neither” contradicts the explicit text. Common Pitfalls: Missing the implicit critique in a recommendation phrased around a specific deficiency. Final Answer: If both I and II follow.

Question 7

Statement: Company X has marketed its product with the line: “Go ahead and purchase it, if price and quality are your considerations.”  Conclusions: I. The product must be good in quality. II. The price of the product must be reasonable.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Advertisements often encode claims about product attributes. Here, the call-to-action ties purchase to two considerations—price and quality—implying that both will satisfy a discerning buyer. We must read what the message commits to within the text itself. Given Data / Assumptions: Company X urges purchase conditioned on concern for price and quality. In standard reading, such an appeal asserts that the product meets these considerations favorably. There is no counter-qualifier limiting the claim to only one attribute. Concept / Approach: If the marketing line sets price and quality as the buyer’s decision criteria and still urges purchase, the implied claim is that the product is of good quality and reasonably priced. Therefore both conclusions follow from the semantics of the appeal. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Interpret “if price and quality are your considerations” as “we satisfy these.”2) Hence, I (good quality) follows.3) And II (reasonable price) follows. Verification / Alternative check: Were the product poor in quality or overpriced, anchoring the ad to those very criteria would be self-defeating; thus the intended message entails both positive claims. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II under-reads the coupled criteria; “neither” contradicts the clear persuasive structure. Common Pitfalls: Overly skeptical readings that deny any implication; while ads can exaggerate, this question asks what follows from the statement’s own logic. Final Answer: If both I and II follows.

Question 8

Statement: For outstanding candidates, the condition of previous social-work experience may be waived by the Admission Committee for the M.A. (Social Work) program.  Conclusions: I. Some M.A. (Social Work) students will have previous experience of s…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement establishes a conditional waiver: outstanding candidates may have the usual requirement (prior social-work experience) waived. This has direct implications for the composition of the admitted cohort with respect to experience status. Given Data / Assumptions: Normal rule: prior experience required. Exception: outstanding candidates may be exempted. Therefore, two admissible categories exist: with experience (those who meet the usual rule) and without (those granted waiver). Concept / Approach: If a rule allows a waiver for a subset, then logically some admitted students can lack the waived attribute (here, prior experience). Simultaneously, because the rule still exists for non-waived applicants, some admitted candidates will have the experience. Hence both conclusions follow. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify two pathways to admission: with-experience (rule) and without-experience (waiver for outstanding).2) Therefore, I follows: some students with prior experience.3) Therefore, II follows: some students without prior experience (via waiver). Verification / Alternative check: Even if many are waived, at least some non-waived will have experience; conversely, the existence of the waiver creates the possibility of admission without experience. The statement’s very purpose is to allow both categories. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only-I or Only-II ignores one side of the explicit policy design; “neither” contradicts the waiver language. Common Pitfalls: Reading “may be waived” as “will never be applied” or as “applies to everyone,” both of which are misinterpretations. Final Answer: If both the conclusion I and II follow.

Question 9

Statement: Persons on the waiting list could finally get berth reservations in the Rajdhani Express.  Conclusions: I. Wait-listed passengers generally find it difficult to get berths in the Rajdhani Express. II. The number of berths available in the…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement notes that wait-listed passengers “finally” obtained berths. The adverb suggests a delay or difficulty before success. However, it does not quantify total capacity in the train, nor does it compare the berth count to demand. We must assess which conclusion is a necessary inference. Given Data / Assumptions: Some wait-listed passengers ultimately secured berths. The wording “finally” implies a non-trivial wait/difficulty prior to confirmation. No data on train capacity or absolute berth numbers. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I generalizes that wait-listed passengers “generally” face difficulty getting berths. The text supports a tendency to difficulty (implied by “finally”) rather than ease, making I a reasonable inference about the usual experience of WL passengers. Conclusion II claims that the number of berths is small—a capacity statement not derivable from the information given; high demand could cause wait lists even with large capacity. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Interpret “finally” as indicating prior difficulty.2) Therefore, I follows as a general tendency for WL passengers.3) Capacity size is not addressed; WL occurs whenever demand initially exceeds supply, regardless of absolute berth count → II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Even premium trains with many berths can generate long wait lists during peak seasons; thus II is not compelled by the statement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only II” or “Both” add an unsupported capacity claim; “Neither” ignores the textual cue embedded in “finally.” Common Pitfalls: Confusing relative scarcity (demand vs. supply at a given time) with absolute scarcity (small capacity). Final Answer: If only Conclusion I follows.

Question 10

Statement: Crime is a function of the criminal's biological make-up and his family relations. Conclusions: I. The incidence of crime is higher in identical twins than in fraternal twins. II. Families in which parents lack warmth and affection fail t…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a classic statement–conclusion problem. The statement claims that criminal behavior is a function (i.e., influenced by) two broad factors: a person's biological make-up and family relations. From this, we must test what necessarily follows, without adding external research or assumptions beyond the words given. Given Data / Assumptions: Crime is influenced by biological factors. Crime is influenced by family-relationship factors. No statistics, comparative studies, or specific sub-claims (e.g., about twins or parenting warmth) are asserted. Concept / Approach: In logical reasoning questions, a conclusion follows only if it is a necessary consequence of the given statement. Any new specificity (particular populations, measurements, causal thresholds) that is not explicitly stated cannot be treated as a necessary inference. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Test Conclusion I: “Higher crime in identical than fraternal twins.” This injects a specific comparative claim about twin concordance. The statement says nothing about twins (identical or fraternal), concordance rates, or heritability magnitudes; it merely says biology is one influence. Hence I does not necessarily follow.2) Test Conclusion II: “Parents lacking warmth fail to build conscience.” While family relations are mentioned, the statement does not single out warmth/affection, nor does it assert that a lack thereof necessarily results in failing to build conscience. It is a new, specific causation not contained in the general claim. II does not necessarily follow. Verification / Alternative check: If the statement had explicitly compared twin types or specified parental warmth as a necessary condition for conscience, the respective conclusions might follow. In the absence of such details, both are speculative. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only I” or “Only II” import details not stated. “Either I or II” still assumes at least one must follow, which is untrue. “Neither” correctly respects the generality of the premise. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “is a function of” with exact quantitative predictions; adding outside scientific knowledge to force a conclusion. Final Answer: if neither I nor II follow

Question 11

Statement: “Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.” Conclusions: I. Fashion designers do not understand people's minds very well. II. People, by and large, are highly susceptible to novelty.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The aphoristic statement suggests that fashion must keep changing rapidly because the prior look becomes intolerable. We examine which conclusion is a necessary implication of this idea. Given Data / Assumptions: Fashion changes frequently (roughly every six months). The driver of change is an intolerance for the existing look, implying a craving for newness. Nothing is said about designers’ understanding of psychology. Concept / Approach: If something must be altered very frequently to remain acceptable, it implies the audience strongly favors novelty or quickly tires of the present. The statement does not evaluate designers’ skill; it comments on the dynamics of taste and tolerance. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Conclusion I: “Designers do not understand people's minds.” The premise offers no evidence about designers’ competence; frequent change could be a deliberate strategy that matches consumer psychology perfectly. Therefore I does not follow.2) Conclusion II: “People are highly susceptible to novelty.” The described six-month churn implies receptivity to newness and quick boredom with the old. Thus II follows logically. Verification / Alternative check: If the statement had criticized designers’ misreading of tastes, I could follow. Instead, it characterizes fashion's nature, not designers’ skill. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: unsupported. Either I or II: wrongly admits I. Neither: ignores the clear novelty implication in II. Common Pitfalls: Attributing causality to designers rather than consumer psychology; overlooking that rapid cycles indicate demand for novelty. Final Answer: if only Conclusion II follows

Question 12

Statement: Unemployment is one of the main reasons for the country's poverty. Conclusions: I. To end poverty, creating employment opportunities is required. II. All the people in the country are unemployed.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement identifies unemployment as one of the principal contributors to poverty. We must infer what necessarily follows from this causal framing. Given Data / Assumptions: Unemployment significantly contributes to poverty (among other factors). The statement does not quantify “main” nor deny other causes (e.g., low wages, inflation, access issues). Concept / Approach: If X is one of the main reasons for Y, then addressing X is a necessary component of any serious strategy to end Y (even if not sufficient by itself). By contrast, claiming that “all people are unemployed” grossly overgeneralizes beyond the premise. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Conclusion I: Since unemployment is a main driver of poverty, generating jobs is required to tackle poverty. This is a necessary (though not necessarily sufficient) inference → follows.2) Conclusion II: “All people are unemployed” contradicts common sense and is not implied by “one of the main reasons.” → does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Even if other measures (education, healthcare, price stability) are also needed, removing a main cause is still required to end the effect—thus I stands. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II: baseless. Either: wrongly admits II. Neither: ignores the necessity of employment creation implied by the premise. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “necessary” with “sufficient”; assuming the statement denies other causes. Final Answer: If only Conclusion I follows

Question 13

Statement: Multinational fast-food chains have started operations in India after facing many problems; farmer associations say they are ready for competition. Conclusions: I. Farmer associations are not supporting modernization. II. Farmer associati…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The premise has two parts: (1) MNC fast-food chains have begun operations despite initial difficulties; (2) farmer associations state they are ready for competition. We must assess the necessary inferences about farmers’ attitudes. Given Data / Assumptions: MNCs are present (after problems). Farmer associations claim readiness to compete. No explicit stance on modernization beyond this readiness is provided. Concept / Approach: Logical necessity depends on what is explicitly stated. Readiness to compete is inconsistent with “not ready,” and it also does not imply a rejection of modernization; being ready could well include adopting modern practices. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: “Not supporting modernization” is not stated and contradicts the competitive posture that often entails modernization; hence I does not follow.2) II: “Not ready to compete” directly contradicts the statement that they are ready; hence II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: If the statement had asserted resistance to modern practices or unwillingness to compete, either I or II might follow. It asserts the opposite. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either: each conflicts with the stated readiness. “Neither” correctly reflects the premise. Common Pitfalls: Projecting stereotyped attitudes toward modernization onto the associations without textual support. Final Answer: If neither I nor II follows

Question 14

Statements: 1) Shyam is not the father of Hari. 2) Hari is the son of Suresh. 3) Suresh has three sons. Conclusions: I. Hari is the brother of Shyam. II. Suresh is the father of Hari.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We are given three crisp kinship statements and must test which conclusions necessarily follow. Given Data / Assumptions: Shyam is not Hari's father. Hari is Suresh's son. Suresh has three sons (their names unspecified beyond Hari). Concept / Approach: A conclusion follows only when it is compelled by the statements. We avoid inferring relationships that are not pinned down (e.g., brotherhood between two named people without explicit linkage). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Conclusion II: “Suresh is the father of Hari” directly matches statement (2) — follows immediately.2) Conclusion I: “Hari is the brother of Shyam.” Nothing in the premises says Shyam is Suresh’s son or otherwise related as a sibling to Hari. Shyam could be an uncle, cousin, neighbor, or even Suresh himself (ruled out as father but not otherwise linked). Therefore I does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: If we had “Shyam is Suresh’s son,” then with (2) Shyam and Hari would be brothers. That link is absent. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: unsupported. Either I or II: wrong because I does not follow. Neither: wrong because II follows. Common Pitfalls: Assuming that any two male names in a family statement are brothers; overlooking the need for an explicit sibling link. Final Answer: if only Conclusion II follows

Question 15

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

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The premise asserts a pragmatic claim: to both survive and prosper, one almost inevitably has to compromise on ethics and morality. We test which conclusions are necessary implications of that claim. Given Data / Assumptions: “Almost impossible” signals that in practical life, strict adherence to ethics/morality rarely coexists with survival and prosperity. No statement is made about what “the world” appreciates in theory. Concept / Approach: Conclusion II rephrases the practical thrust: if success and even survival ordinarily demand compromise, then the ideals, in their pure form, are not practicable in real life. By contrast, Conclusion I introduces a new, evaluative claim about collective appreciation that is not present in the text. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) II tests the practicability of strict ethics: the statement describes a world where strict morality is not feasible alongside survival/prosperity → not practicable → II follows.2) I attributes attitudes (“appreciates but does not uphold”) to “the world,” which is not discussed; the premise comments on practical outcomes, not on attitudes → I does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Had the statement said “people praise ethics but do not practice them,” I would follow. It instead frames a feasibility claim, matching II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: unsupported. Either: wrongly admits I. Both: overstates the evidence. Common Pitfalls: Reading implicit moral judgments or social attitudes into a statement about practicality. Final Answer: if only Conclusion II follows

Question 16

Statement: “The greatest need in India today is not sophisticated gadgets but programmes that provide employment to large numbers.” Conclusions: I. There is an adequate number of sophisticated gadgets in India. II. Emphasis is being laid on procurin…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement ranks priorities: mass employment programmes are a greater need than sophisticated gadgets. We must decide what necessarily follows about current adequacy or emphasis on gadgets. Given Data / Assumptions: Employment programmes are identified as the greatest need. No quantitative data about gadget availability or current policy emphasis is provided. Concept / Approach: From “X is the greater need than Y,” you cannot infer that Y is adequate, nor that Y currently receives emphasis. Priority statements guide where focus should go, not what the present stock or present emphasis is. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: Adequacy of gadgets is unstated; employment can be top priority even if gadgets are scarce. Hence I does not follow.2) II: The statement recommends employment focus but does not claim that current emphasis is actually on gadgets; thus II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: If the statement had said “despite heavy gadget spending, jobs are neglected,” II might follow. It does not say that. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either: inject information not provided. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a priority recommendation with a description of present conditions. Final Answer: if neither I nor II follow

Question 17

Statement: A man must be wise to be a good wrangler. Good wranglers are talkative and boring. Conclusions: I. All wise persons are boring. II. All wise persons are good wranglers.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The premises create class relations: (1) good wrangler ⊆ wise; (2) good wrangler ⊆ talkative and boring. We must decide whether the entire class “wise” inherits “boring,” or whether all wise people are good wranglers. Given Data / Assumptions: Being a good wrangler implies being wise. Being a good wrangler implies being talkative and boring. No statement that all wise are wranglers, or that all wise share the wrangler attributes. Concept / Approach: This is a subset logic problem. From A ⊆ B and A ⊆ C, we cannot conclude B ⊆ C or C ⊆ B. Knowing attributes of a subset (good wranglers) tells us nothing about the whole superset (all wise people). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: “All wise persons are boring.” We only know “good wranglers are boring” and that “good wranglers are wise.” Non-wrangler wise persons may or may not be boring → I does not follow.2) II: “All wise persons are good wranglers.” We only have the converse (good wrangler ⇒ wise), not the biconditional. Hence II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: If the premise had said “a man is a good wrangler iff he is wise,” then II could follow; it does not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option assuming superset properties from subset properties commits the converse accident fallacy. Common Pitfalls: Illicit conversion of subset statements; assuming attributes of a part must characterize the whole. Final Answer: if neither Conclusion I nor II follows

Question 18

Statement: “Fortune favours the brave.” Conclusions: I. Taking risks is necessary for success. II. Cowards die many times before their death.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The proverb communicates an association between bravery and favourable outcomes. We test which conclusion necessarily reflects that message. Given Data / Assumptions: Bravery attracts “fortune” (success, favourable results). Bravery commonly implies willingness to face risk. No claim about cowards’ mortality or repeated “dying” (metaphorical) is made. Concept / Approach: To say fortune favours the brave is to claim that success tends to accompany brave (i.e., risk-accepting) action. Thus, risk-taking is treated as a necessary ingredient for such fortune. The second conclusion introduces a literary statement disconnected from the premise. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: Bravery entails embracing risk; if fortune tracks bravery, risk-taking is positioned as necessary for success → follows.2) II: “Cowards die many times…” is a Shakespearean sentiment not implied by the proverb. There is no assertion about cowards’ experiences or deaths → does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: If the statement had contrasted cowards and outcomes, II might be testable. It does not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II/Either/Neither all ignore the risk-success link embedded in the proverb. Common Pitfalls: Reading poetic lines into logical tests; confusing illustrative aphorisms with unrelated quotations. Final Answer: if Conclusion I follows

Question 19

Statement: Morning walks are good for health. Conclusions: I. All healthy people go for morning walks. II. Evening walks are harmful.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement gives a sufficiency-type recommendation (morning walks are beneficial). We must not convert it into universal necessities or into negative claims about other activities. Given Data / Assumptions: Morning walks contribute positively to health. No statement about all healthy people's habits. No statement about evening walks. Concept / Approach: From “X is good,” it does not follow that “all good outcomes require X,” nor that “not-X is bad.” These are classic invalid inferences. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: “All healthy people go for morning walks” converts a sufficiency into a necessity; the premise does not warrant that → does not follow.2) II: Nothing is said about evening walks. They could be good, neutral, or bad; the premise is silent → does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Had the statement said “only morning walks make you healthy,” I might follow. Or if it had condemned evening walks, II might follow. Neither is present. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option admitting I or II reads more than what is asserted. Common Pitfalls: Illicitly converting sufficiency to necessity; assuming mutually exclusive benefits across times of day. Final Answer: if neither Conclusion I nor II follows

Question 20

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

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The aphorism states that the best way to “escape” a problem is to solve it. This is a recommendation about method, not a factual survey of all lives or an inventory of ready-made solutions. Our task is to test each conclusion for necessary logical follow-through from the given statement only. Given Data / Assumptions: A “problem” is something undesirable that one wishes to escape from. Among possible approaches, “solve it” is claimed to be the best way to escape. No claims are made about the emotional tone of a problem-free life, nor about carrying pre-packaged solutions. Concept / Approach: In statement–conclusion items, a conclusion follows only if it must be true whenever the statement is true. The aphorism elevates solving as the optimal escape but says nothing about (a) how exciting or dull life is without problems, or (b) whether one must always possess a solution beforehand. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Conclusion I claims: “Your life will be dull if you do not face a problem.” The premise does not evaluate the quality of life as dull or exciting. It simply prescribes solving as the best escape route. Thus I does not follow.2) Conclusion II asserts: “You should always have some solution with you.” The statement recommends solving when a problem arises; it does not require a perpetual, ready-made solution. Solutions can be discovered, developed, or chosen at the time. Hence II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Had the statement claimed “a life without problems is dull,” I would follow. Had it prescribed “carry a solution at all times,” II would follow. Neither is said. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option admitting I or II introduces unstated content about life’s excitement or pre-ownership of solutions. “Either” still wrongly assumes at least one follows. Common Pitfalls: Conflating a methodological maxim (“solve it”) with universal claims about lifestyle or preparedness. Final Answer: if neither Conclusion I nor II follows

Statement and Conclusion Questions