Question 1

Statement: “A neurotic is a non-stupid person who behaves stupidly.” Conclusions: I. Neuroticism and stupidity go hand in hand. II. Normal persons behave intelligently.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement draws a contrast: a neurotic is explicitly “non-stupid,” yet exhibits “stupid” behavior. This creates a distinction between inherent ability and outward conduct. We examine whether the provided conclusions necessarily follow. Given Data / Assumptions: A neurotic is not inherently stupid (non-stupid). Despite that, a neurotic behaves in a way described as “stupidly.” No claims are made about all “normal” (non-neurotic) persons. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I fuses neuroticism with stupidity (“go hand in hand”). But the statement expressly separates inherent stupidity from neuroticism. Conclusion II generalizes about “normal persons” behaving intelligently; the statement says nothing about the behavior of all non-neurotics. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: Since the premise insists a neurotic is non-stupid, equating neuroticism with stupidity contradicts it. I does not follow.2) II: The statement defines the neurotic; it offers no universal law about normal persons. Some normal persons may behave unintelligently on occasion. Hence II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: If the premise had said “neurotics are stupid people,” I might follow; it says the opposite. If it had stated “all normal persons behave intelligently,” II might follow; it does not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option admitting I or II overreaches beyond the text or contradicts it. Common Pitfalls: Confusing capacity (“non-stupid person”) with behavior under stress (“behaves stupidly”). Final Answer: if neither Conclusion I nor II follows

Question 2

Statement: “The best evidence of India’s glorious past is the growing popularity of Ayurvedic medicines in the West.” Conclusions: I. Ayurvedic medicines are not popular in India. II. Allopathic medicines are more popular in India.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The premise cites Western popularity of Ayurveda as evidence of India’s glorious past. It makes a comparative cultural point, not a domestic market analysis. We must test conclusions about popularity within India and relative preference over allopathy. Given Data / Assumptions: Ayurveda’s popularity is growing in the West. This is being offered as proof of India’s historic excellence. No domestic popularity data or comparisons with allopathy are provided. Concept / Approach: From “Ayurveda is getting popular in the West,” we cannot infer “Ayurveda is not popular in India,” nor that “Allopathy is more popular in India.” Both are new claims requiring separate evidence. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: The statement is silent on Indian popularity; asserting “not popular in India” is unjustified → does not follow.2) II: No comparison is drawn between Ayurveda and allopathy in India → does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: If comparative Indian market shares had been discussed, II might be evaluable. They are not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option admitting I or II imports unstated market facts. Common Pitfalls: Inferring domestic conclusions from international trends; assuming a zero-sum relation with allopathy. Final Answer: if neither Conclusion I nor II follows

Question 3

Statement: “India’s economy depends mainly on forests.” Conclusions: I. Trees should be preserved to improve India’s economy. II. India wants only the maintenance of forests to improve economic conditions.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The premise claims a primary dependence of India’s economy on forests. We must decide whether a conservation-oriented policy recommendation (I) necessarily follows, and whether an exclusivity claim (II) follows. Given Data / Assumptions: Forests are the main economic support (as per the statement). No claim is made that other sectors are irrelevant. Concept / Approach: If a critical resource underpins the economy, preserving it is a rational necessary condition for sustaining or improving that economy. However, claiming “only” forests are wanted excludes all other levers, which the statement does not warrant. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: If forests are the main support, preservation is a necessary policy implication for economic improvement → follows.2) II: The word “only” overreaches. The statement does not exclude other economic drivers or policies → does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Had the statement asserted “only forests matter,” II might follow; it does not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only II” and “either” misread the exclusivity claim; “neither” ignores the necessary preservation logic in I. Common Pitfalls: Treating a “main” factor as the “sole” factor; overlooking that preservation is a logical necessity for a primary resource. Final Answer: if Conclusion I follows

Question 4

Statement: “The Sun is a source of light.” Conclusions: I. The Moon is not a source of light. II. Light has only one source.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement acknowledges the Sun as a source of light. It does not address other bodies or exclusivity. We test whether conclusions about the Moon or uniqueness of sources necessarily follow. Given Data / Assumptions: Sun → source of light. No assertion of exclusivity (“only source”). No claim about the Moon. Concept / Approach: From “A is a source,” we cannot infer “B is not a source,” nor “A is the only source.” Both conclusions import content not present in the premise. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: The premise does not evaluate the Moon’s status; stating it is not a source is unjustified → does not follow.2) II: The premise does not claim uniqueness; other sources may exist → does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Had the statement been “the Sun is the only source of light,” II would follow; it is not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Admitting I or II moves beyond the text. Common Pitfalls: Illicitly converting a particular affirmative (“some A are B”) into a universal (“only A are B”). Final Answer: if neither Conclusion I nor II follows

Question 5

Statement: “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.” Conclusions: I. The writer’s knowledge is very poor. II. The world of knowledge is too vast to be explored by a single person.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement is a self-assessment: the speaker recognizes only their own ignorance. We evaluate whether this necessarily implies poor personal knowledge (I) and whether it asserts a sweeping truth about the vastness of all knowledge (II). Given Data / Assumptions: The speaker claims to know only that they are ignorant. No general claim about the entire universe of knowledge is made. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I is a paraphrase of the self-report: admitting ignorance implies poor knowledge by the speaker. Conclusion II is an extrapolation about the world’s knowledge being too vast for any single person; that may be a common philosophical stance, but it is not asserted here. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: “Know nothing… except my ignorance” → the writer acknowledges extremely limited knowledge → I follows.2) II: The premise does not generalize about all people or the scope of knowledge; therefore II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: If the statement had said “no one can explore all knowledge,” II would follow. It does not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II/Either/Neither ignore the self-referential clarity of I. Common Pitfalls: Injecting a larger epistemological thesis into a purely personal confession. Final Answer: if Conclusion I follows

Question 6

Statement: “Animals live on oxygen.” Conclusions: I. Plants do not live on oxygen. II. Anything that needs oxygen must be an animal.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement affirms a property of animals: they require oxygen. It does not make exclusivity claims about plants or all oxygen-using entities. We test the two conclusions for necessary implication. Given Data / Assumptions: All animals need oxygen. Nothing is said about plants' respiration or about other oxygen-using organisms. Concept / Approach: Conclusion I excludes plants from oxygen use; the premise is silent on plants. Conclusion II makes oxygen-use a sufficient test for being an animal; again, the premise does not reverse the implication. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: Not stated; plants may also use oxygen (e.g., for respiration), but the premise neither confirms nor denies it → does not follow.2) II: The premise is “animal ⇒ needs oxygen,” not “needs oxygen ⇒ animal.” Illicit conversion → does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Only if exclusivity or biconditionality were asserted would I/II follow. They are not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option admitting I or II imports unstated exclusivity. Common Pitfalls: Reversing logical direction; assuming “only animals” need oxygen. Final Answer: if neither Conclusion I nor II follows

Question 7

Statement: “Songs always have singers to sing them.” Conclusions: I. Singers make a song. II. There is no unsung song.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The premise states a universal condition for songs: they “always have singers to sing them.” We evaluate whether that entails causal authorship by singers (I) and the impossibility of an “unsung song” (II). Given Data / Assumptions: For every song, at least one singer exists who sings it. No statement is made about composition or creation (“make a song”). Concept / Approach: Conclusion II is essentially a restatement of the universal: if every song has a singer who sings it, then none are unsung. Conclusion I shifts from performance to creation, which the premise does not claim. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: “Singers make a song” conflates composing/creating with singing/performing. The premise only guarantees presence of a singer, not authorship → I does not follow.2) II: If all songs are sung by some singer, the category “unsung song” is empty → II follows. Verification / Alternative check: Were the premise “songs are made by singers,” I would follow. It is not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Admitting I introduces causation not present; denying II contradicts the universal quantifier “always.” Common Pitfalls: Confusing composing with performing. Final Answer: if Conclusion II follows

Question 8

Statement: “A room with flowers looks beautiful.” Conclusions: I. Flowers are grown for decorating rooms. II. A room without flowers looks ugly.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The premise praises one sufficient condition for beauty: having flowers improves a room’s appearance. We must not overread it into statements about purpose or exclusivity. Given Data / Assumptions: Adding flowers makes a room look beautiful. No claim is made about why flowers are grown. No claim is made that rooms without flowers must be ugly. Concept / Approach: From “X makes Y beautiful,” we cannot infer “X is the purpose of Z,” nor “not-X makes Y ugly.” Those would respectively be claims about intent and necessity, neither of which is stated. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: Many reasons exist to grow flowers (agriculture, perfume, ecology). The premise says nothing about primary purpose → does not follow.2) II: The negation is not implied; a room may be beautiful without flowers via other decor → does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: If the statement had said “rooms are beautiful only with flowers,” II might be testable; it does not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option that admits I or II imports intent or necessity not present. Common Pitfalls: Illicitly converting sufficiency to necessity; assuming unique purpose from a single benefit. Final Answer: if neither Conclusion I nor II follows

Question 9

Statement: “Religions provide the means for attaining eternal peace. People should follow these means.” Conclusions: I. Religions ensure a prosperous life. II. Religions help people eradicate poverty.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The premise claims a spiritual outcome (eternal peace) is accessible via religious means and urges adherence. We test whether material conclusions about prosperity and poverty eradication necessarily follow. Given Data / Assumptions: Religions provide means to attain eternal peace. People are advised to follow these means. No economic claims (income, wealth, poverty metrics) are made. Concept / Approach: Conclusions I and II translate a spiritual promise into material outcomes. The original statement distinguishes inner peace from material well-being. Without explicit bridging claims, prosperity or poverty eradication cannot be inferred as necessary results. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I: “Ensure a prosperous life” is a material-economic assertion absent from the premise → does not follow.2) II: “Eradicate poverty” likewise moves into socio-economic policy territory not addressed → does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Had the statement claimed “religions guarantee material prosperity/eradicate poverty,” either conclusion might follow. It does not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option admitting I or II conflates spiritual means with material endpoints. Common Pitfalls: Equating inner peace with financial success; assuming moral/spiritual adherence directly causes economic outcomes. Final Answer: if neither Conclusion I nor II follows

Question 10

Statement The education system in India needs to emphasize on areas related to agriculture, technology and tourism instead of basic and pure science. Conclusion I. We have already excelled in these fields. II. WE need another green revolutions to fe…

Accepted Answer

Only Conclusion II is follows.

Question 11

Statement Domestic demand has been increasing faster than the production of indigenous crude oil. Conclusions I. Crude oil must be imported. II. Domestic demand should be reduced.

Accepted Answer

The domestic demand of crude oil should be decreased.

Question 12

Statement Ten new TV shows started in January, 5 sitcoms, 3 drama and 2 news magazines. By April only seven of the new shows were still on, five of them being sitcoms. Based on the above information, four conclusions, as given below, have been made.…

Accepted Answer

No reason is provided for discontinuation of any programme. Hence, option (d) is not correct. Three shows were discontinued. As no sitcoms shows were discontinued, they must be either drama or news magazine. Now, there were only two news magazines. So, at least one discontinued show was a drama. Hence, option (c) is correct.

Question 13

Statement A. People who live in the big city crowd into jammed trains or buses. B. They cross the street in competition with high powered motorcars. Conclusions I. Traveling is very difficult for city people II. Traffic jam is inevitable in big citi…

Accepted Answer

From both the statements, it is clear that people who live in city face problems in travelling. Therefore, only Conclusions I follows.

Question 14

Statement According to the education minister, the students will have the options of skipping the board examination for class X from this academic year to ease some pressure on them. Conclusions I. Class X board examination was compulsory till the l…

Accepted Answer

Only Conclusions I follows.

Question 15

Statements Leaders are human beings. All human beings need rest. Conclusions I. All human beings are not leaders. II. Leader need rest.

Accepted Answer

From the given statements "Leaders are human beings" and All human beings need rest. Hence, "Leaders need rest" follows.

Question 16

Statement This world is neither good nor evil; each man manufactures a world for himself. Conclusions I. Some people find this world quite good. II. Some people find this world quite bad.

Accepted Answer

Both Conclusions follow as it is human thinking that makes the world appear good or evil.

Question 17

Statement Workers feel highly motivated when they get sense of involvement by participating in the management of companies. Conclusions I. Workers should be motivated to produce more. II. Workers should be allowed to participate in the management of…

Accepted Answer

Only Conclusion II follows. As the workers feel motived when they get sense of involvement by participating in the management of companies, so they should be allowed to participate.

Question 18

Statement: Despite the Government’s claim that terrorism is under control, nefarious activities by terrorists still continue. Conclusions: I) Terrorists have not come to an understanding or agreement with the Government. II) The Government has been …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This problem tests whether strong, additional claims can be inferred from a single comparative statement: the Government claims terrorism is under control, yet terrorist activities continue. We must decide if either of the two conclusions necessarily follows from this information alone. Given Data / Assumptions: Premise: Government claims “under check.” Observation: Activities continue (not necessarily their scale, frequency, or trend). No explicit evidence about negotiations/agreements or about the Government’s intent or veracity. Concept / Approach: In statement–conclusion questions, we accept the statement as true and examine whether a conclusion is a necessary logical consequence, not a plausible explanation. Any leap to motives, intentions, or hidden facts is invalid unless compelled by the premise. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Conclusion I claims a missing “understanding” with terrorists. The premise provides no information about talks or agreements; continuing activity does not logically imply the absence of any understanding (e.g., partial ceasefire, localized truces).2) Conclusion II alleges the Government is “constantly lying.” Activities may continue even when overall incidents are reduced; “under check” can mean reduced/contained, not eradicated. The premise does not prove intentional falsehood. Verification / Alternative check: Both conclusions add new content: motives or negotiation status. Since multiple explanations fit the premise (control without elimination, lagging effects, regional variance), neither conclusion is forced. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing I or II alone assumes facts not in evidence. “Either” is also invalid because neither is necessary. Common Pitfalls: Reading “under check” as “zero incidents,” or equating “still continue” with “government lied.” Final Answer: Neither conclusion follows.

Question 19

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

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The item uses metaphor: “knowledge is like water,” emphasizing flow and spread. We must test which conclusions necessarily emerge from this metaphor without importing external facts. Given Data / Assumptions: Water: has volume and shape (container-dependent), and can flow. Knowledge is likened to water and said to “flow from one side to another.” Concept / Approach: Metaphorically, “flow” of knowledge indicates transferability, diffusion, and cross-boundary movement—supporting interdisciplinarity. The statements do not claim that knowledge is restricted to a single domain, nor do they assert anything about “directly influencing core mental activity.” Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Conclusion I (interdisciplinary): The flow analogy entails crossing boundaries; therefore I follows.2) Conclusion II (bounded): Contradicts the “flow” notion; II does not follow.3) Conclusion III (influences core mental activity): Not stated or entailed by the metaphor. The premises compare structural/locomotive properties (shape/volume/flow), not cognitive causality; III does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Even if III is often true in real life, logical necessity must arise from given premises; it does not here. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option including II or III adds claims not supported by the metaphor. Common Pitfalls: Overextending metaphors into psychological assertions; treating a plausible real-world statement as logically entailed. Final Answer: Only Conclusion I follows.

Question 20

Statements: I) Doing well in CSAT implies doing well in PCS. II) A good PCS result ensures entry into IAS or IPS. III) Poor CSAT results do not get you commissioned into any of the civil services. Which option follows from I–III?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We are given two forward implications and one negative condition. The task is to check which option logically follows when the statements are taken together, using valid inference (especially chaining implications) without adding unstated converses. Given Data / Assumptions: I: CSAT good → PCS good. II: PCS good → IAS or IPS (commissioned). III: CSAT poor → not commissioned. Concept / Approach: Use implication chaining and beware of illicit converse/contrapositive leaps. From I and II we can chain: CSAT good → PCS good → IAS/IPS (commissioned). Statement III separately says CSAT poor blocks commissioning. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Evaluate A: “CSAT poor → PCS poor” is the contrapositive of I’s converse and is not warranted. So A does not follow.2) Evaluate B: From I then II, CSAT good implies commissioning into IAS/IPS (a subset of civil services). Hence B follows.3) Evaluate C: “Commissioned to IAS/IPS → CSAT good” is the converse of the chain; converse is not guaranteed. So C does not follow.4) Evaluate D: “Anyone commissioned in civil services → IAS/IPS” is stronger than II (which states good PCS ensures IAS/IPS). There could be other civil services; D overgeneralizes. Verification / Alternative check: Truth table perspective: with I and II true, any “CSAT good” case lands in IAS/IPS; but the reverse need not hold. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A misuses contrapositive of converse; C asserts converse; D overextends the target set. Common Pitfalls: Confusing converse and contrapositive; assuming bi-implications from one-way implications. Final Answer: Good CSAT result ensures commissioning (into IAS/IPS).

Statement and Conclusion Questions