Question 1

Statement: The human organism grows and develops through stimulation and action. Conclusions: I) An inert human organism (without stimulation/action) cannot grow and develop. II) Human organisms do not respond to stimulation and action.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The premise makes a positive claim: growth/development occurs via stimulation and action. We must see which conclusions necessarily follow, paying attention to negations and contradictions. Given Data / Assumptions: Growth and development are contingent on stimulation/action. No suggestion that stimulation/action are ineffective. Concept / Approach: If growth requires stimulation/action, the absence of these would preclude growth—this supports Conclusion I (a form of contrapositive intuition). Conclusion II directly contradicts the premise by stating that humans do not respond to stimulation/action. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) From the dependency, infer that inertness (no stimulation/action) prevents growth ⇒ I follows.2) II is inconsistent with the stated mechanism (respond and grow), so II does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Even if some growth might occur endogenously, the statement posits stimulation/action as the route; we accept that framing for the problem. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both” is contradictory; “neither” ignores the clear logical support for I. Common Pitfalls: Overcomplicating the reading with outside biology; keep to the logical structure given. Final Answer: Only conclusion I follows.

Question 2

Assertion (A): Autism is a developmental disability. Reason (R): Heredity and lower development of brain are causes of autism. Choose the correct A–R relationship.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is an Assertion–Reason item. We must decide (1) the truth values of A and R, and (2) whether R provides a reasonable cause/explanation for A. Given Data / Assumptions: (A): Autism is categorized as a developmental disability (affecting communication, behavior, and social interaction during developmental stages). (R): Hereditary (genetic) factors and atypical/altered neurodevelopment (described here as “lower development of brain”) are implicated in autism. Concept / Approach: On the logical test, we do not need clinical depth—only whether the Reason broadly aligns as a plausible causal account of the Assertion. Autism is widely recognized as a developmental neurodivergence/disability, and genetic/neurodevelopmental etiologies are commonly discussed as contributing factors. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Evaluate A: True. Autism spectrum conditions are developmental in nature.2) Evaluate R: Broadly true as a simplified statement of contributing causes (heritability and neurodevelopmental differences are central discussions).3) Does R explain A? Yes, R states causal bases that are consistent with A’s developmental characterization. Verification / Alternative check: While real-world causation is multifactorial and complex, for exam logic the Reason adequately supports the Assertion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options claiming falsehood of A or R contradict established understanding. A-true/R-false is incorrect because R is not contradicted by the premise of the item set. Common Pitfalls: Demanding scientific precision beyond the scope of a reasoning test; here, we assess broad truth and explanatory relation. Final Answer: Both (A) and (R) are true.

Question 3

Statements: I) A regular polygon has equal sides and equal angles. II) A square is a regular polygon. Conclusions: I) A square has equal sides. II) A square has equal angles.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a direct syllogism using class membership and inherited properties: square ∈ regular polygons; regular polygons have equal sides and equal angles. Given Data / Assumptions: All regular polygons: equal sides & equal angles. Square is a regular polygon. Concept / Approach: Properties of a class apply to its members. Therefore, any square inherits the defining properties of a regular polygon. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) From I: Regular polygon → equal sides and equal angles.2) From II: Square → regular polygon.3) Therefore: Square → equal sides (Conclusion I) and equal angles (Conclusion II). Verification / Alternative check: Independent geometric knowledge corroborates the same; but the logical chain alone suffices. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing only one conclusion arbitrarily discards the other inherited property; “neither” contradicts the explicit inheritance. Common Pitfalls: Overthinking or introducing exceptions that do not exist in the definition of “regular.” Final Answer: Both Conclusions I and II follow.

Question 4

Statement: Philanthropists, driven by human compassion and a zeal to help the needy, have contributed to human welfare in every society. Conclusions: I) Rich persons are philanthropists. II) Poor people cannot act as philanthropists.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This verbal-reasoning problem asks whether extra claims about who can be a philanthropist logically follow from a general statement praising philanthropy. The stem speaks about what philanthropists (whoever they may be) do; it does not define who qualifies to be one based on wealth or poverty. Given Data / Assumptions: Philanthropists act out of compassion and zeal to help the needy. They contribute to welfare in every society. No information is given about the income, assets, or social class of philanthropists. Concept / Approach: In statement–conclusion questions, we must test whether the conclusion is a necessary consequence of the given statement when taken as true. Any conclusion that adds new qualifiers (e.g., “rich only,” “poor never”) must be rejected unless compelled by the wording. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The statement does not say “all philanthropists are rich” or “only the rich can be philanthropists.” Therefore, Conclusion I is not implicit.2) The statement does not exclude poor individuals from being philanthropists. People with limited means can still donate time, skills, or small resources. Hence, Conclusion II is not implicit. Verification / Alternative check: If we attempt to interpret “philanthropy” narrowly as large monetary giving, we would be adding unstated constraints. The test forbids importing such assumptions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only I,” “Only II,” or “Both” each adds an unsupported wealth criterion. “None of these” is unnecessary because option (c) already captures the correct evaluation. Common Pitfalls: Equating philanthropy exclusively with high net worth; ignoring non-monetary dimensions of giving and social contribution. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 5

Conclusion to test: “Many drug addicts were arrested.” Statements: I) Taking drugs is a crime. II) One who commits a crime can be arrested. III) Many people take drugs regularly.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The task is to check whether the conclusion “Many drug addicts were arrested” is a necessary inference from the given statements. The test hinges on carefully distinguishing legal possibility from guaranteed occurrence and on avoiding category shifts (e.g., “people who take drugs” vs. “drug addicts”). Given Data / Assumptions: I) Taking drugs is a crime. II) Anyone who commits a crime can be arrested (i.e., is liable to arrest), not that they will be arrested. III) Many people take drugs regularly (frequency claim about behavior). Concept / Approach: A conclusion must be forced by the premises, not merely compatible with them. We must also respect precise wording: “can be arrested” expresses permission or legal possibility, not an actual fact of arrest. Additionally, “many people take drugs” does not necessarily equal “many drug addicts” in the technical sense; the set relations are not defined. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) From I and II, we get only the liability: people committing the crime of drug-taking may be arrested. This does not entail that arrests occurred.2) Statement III states a prevalence (“many people take drugs regularly”) but does not say that police executed arrests, let alone that “many” addicts (a narrower group than “people who take drugs”) were arrested.3) Therefore, the premises allow the possibility of arrests but do not guarantee the asserted outcome in the conclusion. Verification / Alternative check: Even if enforcement were strict, that fact is not provided. Logical necessity cannot be assumed from real-world plausibility. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options (a), (b), and (c) overclaim sufficiency. The data do not bridge from liability and prevalence to the factual occurrence of “many arrests.” Common Pitfalls: Reading “can be arrested” as “are arrested”; blurring distinctions between “people who take drugs” and “drug addicts.” Final Answer: Data is insufficient to draw the conclusion.

Question 6

Statements: A) No teacher comes to the school on a bicycle. B) Anand comes to the school on a bicycle. Conclusions: I) Anand is not a teacher. II) Anand is a student.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a classic categorical reasoning problem involving a universal negative and a particular instance. We test which conclusions necessarily follow from the premises without importing extra labels (like “student”). Given Data / Assumptions: Premise A: No teacher uses a bicycle to come to school (Teachers ⇒ not bicycle-users). Premise B: Anand comes to school by bicycle (Anand is a bicycle-user). Concept / Approach: From “No teacher is a bicycle-user” and “Anand is a bicycle-user,” we can infer “Anand is not a teacher” (valid by contrapositive / set exclusion). However, nothing is said about Anand’s other possible roles (student, staff, visitor, etc.). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Using A and B: If all Teachers ⊆ (not BicycleUsers), then any BicycleUser ∉ Teachers. Since Anand ∈ BicycleUsers, Anand ∉ Teachers ⇒ Conclusion I follows.2) Conclusion II (“Anand is a student”) adds a category never mentioned in the premises. It does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: A simple Venn diagram confirms: Anand lies in BicycleUsers; Teachers is a disjoint set from BicycleUsers. Membership in “Student” is undecidable. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both” and “II alone” overreach; “both cannot” ignores the valid exclusion inference for I. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a school-goer riding a bicycle must be a student. The premises do not justify that leap. Final Answer: Conclusion I alone can be drawn.

Question 7

Statements: A) Most of the route-64 buses go to my office. B) This is a route-64 bus. Conclusions: I) This bus goes to my office. II) This bus does not go to my office.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The premise uses a “most” quantifier, which indicates a majority but not totality. We must decide whether a specific instance (this particular route-64 bus) can be classified with certainty as going (or not going) to the office. Given Data / Assumptions: “Most route-64 buses go to my office” means: more than half of all route-64 buses go to the office. “This is a route-64 bus” identifies a single instance within that population. Concept / Approach: From “most,” we cannot deduce membership for a particular element without additional information. Certainty requires universal (“all”) or explicit identification. Therefore neither “goes” nor “does not go” is logically compelled. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Conclusion I (“This bus goes to my office”) is plausible but not necessary; some route-64 buses do not go to the office.2) Conclusion II (“This bus does not go to my office”) contradicts the same plausibility; it is equally not necessary.3) Hence, neither I nor II follows with certainty. Verification / Alternative check: A probability intuition (greater than 0.5) cannot replace logical necessity required in such problems. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option selecting I or II asserts a definite outcome not guaranteed by a “most” statement. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “most” with “all,” or treating high likelihood as logical entailment. Final Answer: Both conclusions cannot be drawn.

Question 8

Statements: A) Vitamin B-complex is among the best substances for health. B) Fruits contain Vitamin B-complex. Conclusions: I) We should grow more fruits. II) Fruits are good for health.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We must infer what necessarily follows from claims about Vitamin B-complex and fruit content. Distinguish descriptive health implications from prescriptive policy recommendations. Given Data / Assumptions: Vitamin B-complex is stated to be among the best for health. Fruits contain Vitamin B-complex. Concept / Approach: If fruits contain something that is very good for health, it is reasonable to infer that fruits are good for health (at least in that respect). However, a directive like “we should grow fruits” is a policy conclusion, not a necessary logical consequence of the premises. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Conclusion II (fruits are good for health) is supported: fruits contain B-complex; B-complex is health-beneficial ⇒ fruits have a health benefit.2) Conclusion I (we should grow fruits) involves resource, land-use, and economic considerations not present in the statements; it is not compelled by the premises. Verification / Alternative check: Even if growing fruits is generally positive, logic requires necessity from the given statements alone, not practicality or desirability. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both” overreaches by inserting a prescriptive policy. “Neither” ignores the clear health implication in II. Common Pitfalls: Conflating “good for health” with policy mandates; assuming that one benefit suffices to dictate agricultural planning. Final Answer: Only Conclusion II can be drawn.

Question 9

Statements: A) Some Indians are educated. B) Educated persons like small families. Conclusions: I) All small families are educated. II) Some Indians like small families.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a standard syllogism with a particular affirmative and a universal conditional. We test which conclusions necessarily follow without committing illicit conversions. Given Data / Assumptions: Some Indians are educated (∃x: Indian(x) ∧ Educated(x)). All educated persons like small families (Educated(x) → LikesSmallFamily(x)). Concept / Approach: Chain the particular instance with the universal rule: if some Indians are educated and all educated like small families, then those particular Indians like small families. Be careful: from “All educated like small families,” you cannot infer “All who like small families are educated.” Step-by-Step Solution: 1) From A: pick an Indian who is educated.2) From B: that person likes small families.3) Therefore, there exists at least one Indian who likes small families ⇒ Conclusion II follows.4) Conclusion I (“All small families are educated”) reverses the conditional and overgeneralizes; it does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: A simple Venn/arrow diagram confirms: Indian ∩ Educated maps into LikesSmallFamily; existence is preserved. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both” wrongly accepts the illicit converse; “Only I” is invalid; “Neither” ignores the valid existential inference. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “all A → B” with “all B → A”; forgetting that “some” is enough to derive “some Indians like small families.” Final Answer: Only II can be concluded.

Question 10

Statements: A. Compared to two decades ago, India is producing a larger number of two-wheelers. B. The quality of these vehicles has also improved over that period.  Conclusions: I. India is exporting two-wheelers. II. India’s two-wheeler industry h…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This problem tests “statements and conclusions.” We must decide what necessarily follows from two given facts: output of two-wheelers has increased relative to two decades ago, and product quality has also improved. The candidate conclusions mention exports and overall progress of the industry. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement A: Higher production of two-wheelers now than twenty years ago. Statement B: Quality of these vehicles has improved compared with the past. No explicit mention of exports, trade balances, foreign demand, or export policy. “Commendable progress” should be read as a reasonable synthesis of higher volume + better quality. Concept / Approach: Only conclusions that are compelled by the premises can be accepted. In logical reasoning, inferring “progress” from simultaneous and sustained improvements in output and quality is reasonable. However, inferring “exports” requires additional facts about international sales that are not provided. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Test Conclusion I (exports): The premises talk about domestic production and quality trends. They do not state that any units are exported. Increased output could be absorbed domestically. Therefore, I does not necessarily follow.2) Test Conclusion II (commendable progress): Increased volume plus improved quality jointly indicate positive performance. While “commendable” is an evaluative word, in aptitude logic sets it is typically acceptable to interpret sustained improvement in both quantity and quality as “progress.” Thus II follows. Verification / Alternative check: Construct two scenarios consistent with A and B: (a) No exports at all; (b) High exports. Both satisfy A and B, showing exports are not entailed. In both scenarios, output and quality gains indicate progress, supporting II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • Only I / Both: require export data that is absent.• Neither: ignores clear evidence of progress from A and B taken together. Common Pitfalls: Equating higher output with exports; assuming facts about foreign markets; rejecting reasonable synthesis (progress) when multiple performance dimensions improve. Final Answer: Only Conclusion II can be drawn.

Question 11

Statement: Power (electricity) consumption per family has doubled during the last five years.  Conclusions: I. There is a lot of development in society. II. Power tariffs have become cheaper.  Which conclusion(s) follow(s) from the statement?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: From a single trend—household electricity consumption has doubled over five years—we must judge whether two broad conclusions are logically necessary: that society has developed a lot, or that electricity has become cheaper. Given Data / Assumptions: Only stated fact: per-family electricity consumption today is ≈2× that of five years ago. No information about electricity tariff levels, subsidies, appliance efficiency, household size, income, weather, or lifestyle changes. Concept / Approach: Logical necessity requires that a conclusion hold in every scenario consistent with the given statement. We therefore test whether each conclusion must be true across plausible explanations for higher usage. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Test Conclusion I (development): Consumption might increase due to wastefulness, heat waves, larger households, or inefficient devices—not necessarily “development.” Conversely, development could also increase usage, but it is not the only explanation. Hence I is not compelled.2) Test Conclusion II (cheaper power): Usage could rise even if power becomes more expensive (e.g., mandatory electrification of cooking, new devices). Without tariff data, II is not forced. Verification / Alternative check: Construct scenarios: (a) Tariffs increased, but appliance additions led to higher usage; (b) Tariffs decreased, leading to more usage; (c) No tariff change, but climate/remote work increased consumption. The statement holds in all three—therefore neither conclusion is necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • Any option asserting I or II assumes unstated causal links.• “Both” is doubly unsupported. Common Pitfalls: Confusing correlation (higher usage) with causation (development or cheaper rates); assuming a single cause when multiple factors can explain the observation. Final Answer: Neither Conclusion I nor II follows.

Question 12

Statement: Most dresses in that shop are expensive.  Which of the following is certainly true?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Most” means “more than half.” From “Most dresses in that shop are expensive,” we must identify what must be true in every interpretation consistent with the statement. Given Data / Assumptions: Let the total number of dresses be N > 0. “Most are expensive” ⇒ expensive > N/2. No information about handloom category, exact counts, or whether all are expensive. Concept / Approach: Translate the quantifier “most” into set/number terms, then test each option for necessity vs. possibility. Step-by-Step Solution: • Option A: If more than half are expensive, then at least one is expensive. So “some are expensive” is certainly true.• Option B: “There are cheap dresses also” is possible but not necessary; “most” allows a minority to be cheap, but it could be zero if “most” were used loosely as “all but a few,” so we cannot assert existence.• Option C: Introduces “handloom” without basis; cannot be inferred.• Option D/E: Both are extreme (no cheap / all expensive) and contradict the flexibility of “most.” Verification / Alternative check: Example satisfying statement: Out of 100 dresses, 70 expensive, 30 cheap ⇒ A true; B true in this model but not necessary across all models. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They assert more than the premise (B, C, D, E) or add unsupported categories (C). Common Pitfalls: Misreading “most” as “all”; assuming the existence of the complementary set without proof. Final Answer: Some dresses in that shop are expensive.

Question 13

Statement: A research study recorded that the absolute number of unemployed educated youth equals the absolute number of unemployed uneducated youth. Researchers concluded that education does not increase the probability of employment among youth.  …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The study compares counts of unemployed youths across two groups (educated vs. uneducated) and jumps to a conclusion about probabilities (risk rates) of unemployment. To validate such a claim, we must convert absolute numbers into relative measures (rates/percentages) using the appropriate denominators. Given Data / Assumptions: Observed: Unemployed(educated youth) = Unemployed(uneducated youth) in absolute numbers. Unknown: Sizes of the two populations—Educated youth population vs. Uneducated youth population. Goal: Test whether education affects the probability (rate) of employment/unemployment. Concept / Approach: Probabilities require dividing the number of unemployed by the size of the corresponding group. Equal numerators can conceal very different rates when denominators differ. Thus, risk comparison must use percentages (or rates), not raw counts. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the needed metric: unemployment rate among educated youth = Unemployed(educated)/Total educated youth; unemployment rate among uneducated youth = Unemployed(uneducated)/Total uneducated youth.2) Compare rates: If these percentages are equal (or the educated rate is not lower), the study’s conclusion gains support; if the educated rate is lower, the conclusion is undermined. Verification / Alternative check: Example: Suppose 900,000 educated youth and 100,000 uneducated youth. If 10,000 in each group are unemployed, rates are 1.11% vs. 10%—very different despite equal counts. Therefore, the raw equality of counts is insufficient. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • (a) Other age groups are irrelevant to youth probabilities.• (b) Number of organisations does not map directly to unemployment risk without hiring data.• (d) Change over last year is orthogonal to current probability comparison.• (e) Salaries address outcomes for the employed, not the probability of being employed. Common Pitfalls: Confusing counts with rates; ignoring base population sizes; over-generalising from a single cross-section. Final Answer: The percentage of unemployment among educated youth versus among uneducated youth.

Question 14

Statement: Last summer, Ankit attended a summer camp where he participated in hiking, swimming, and boating. This summer, he is looking forward to a music camp where he hopes to sing, dance, and learn to play the guitar.  Which conclusion logically …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We have a short narrative: last year, Ankit attended an outdoor-activity camp; this year, he looks forward to a music camp and explicitly “hopes to sing, dance, and learn guitar.” We must identify the conclusion that necessarily follows from the given lines—not from external assumptions. Given Data / Assumptions: Past: hiking, swimming, boating. Present plan: a music camp; Ankit hopes to sing, dance, and learn guitar. No information about parental preferences, long-term trends, or dislikes. Concept / Approach: When a subject “hopes to” perform specific activities, it indicates desire/liking for those activities, unless contradicted by the text. The other options introduce unstated motives or quantifiers (e.g., “every summer”). Step-by-Step Solution: • Option D (“Ankit likes to sing and dance”) is directly supported by “he hopes to sing, dance.”• Option A posits parental wish—unstated.• Option B compares preferences—no comparative statement is provided.• Option C generalises “every summer” from two summers—insufficient.• Option E claims dislike—contradicted by last year’s participation but not implied now. Verification / Alternative check: Remove each option and ask: would the passage remain true? Only D is entailed by the text content itself. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They add new facts or strength of preference not in the passage. Common Pitfalls: Over-generalising from two instances; attributing motives to parents; reading “hopes to” as a mere possibility rather than a sign of interest. Final Answer: Ankit likes to sing and dance.

Question 15

Examine the statements: I. None but students are members of the club. (Only students can be members; hence every member is a student.) II. Some members of the club are married persons. III. All married persons are invited for the dance.  Which concl…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a set-inclusion (syllogism) question. We are told who can be club members and who is invited for the dance. We must connect the sets correctly without over-generalising. Given Data / Assumptions: “None but students are members” ⇒ Members ⊆ Students. “Some members are married” ⇒ There exists at least one member who is married; since Members ⊆ Students, some married members are married students. “All married persons are invited for the dance” ⇒ Married ⊆ Invited. Concept / Approach: Chain subset relations: Members ⊆ Students; Married ⊆ Invited. Intersecting information (“some members are married”) yields “some married students exist” and those, being married, are invited. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Married members are by definition students (from I) and married (from II).2) All married people are invited (III). Therefore, all married students of the club are invited. Verification / Alternative check: Venn diagram: Draw Students; Members as a subset of Students; Married as an overlapping set. The overlap of Members and Married lies inside Students and is entirely inside Invited. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • (a) “All students invited” is too broad; we know nothing about unmarried students.• (c) “All members married” contradicts only “some members are married.”• (d)/(e) do not follow from the premises. Common Pitfalls: Assuming converses or universalising “some” to “all.” Final Answer: All married students of the club are invited for the dance.

Question 16

Examine the statements: I. I watch TV only if I am bored. (Watching TV ⇒ Bored) II. I am never bored when I have my brother’s company. (Brother’s company ⇒ Not bored) III. Whenever I go to the theatre, I take my brother along. (Theatre ⇒ Brother’s c…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We must convert verbal conditionals into logical implications and identify a conclusion that necessarily follows. The key phrase “only if” establishes a necessary condition. Given Data / Assumptions: I: WatchTV ⇒ Bored (necessary condition = “bored”). II: Brother ⇒ Not bored. III: Theatre ⇒ Brother. Concept / Approach: From “P only if Q” we get P ⇒ Q. The valid contrapositive is ¬Q ⇒ ¬P. Hence from I we also obtain: Not bored ⇒ Do not watch TV. Step-by-Step Solution: • Option D is the contrapositive of I and is therefore valid: Not bored ⇒ Not watch TV.• Option A (“If bored, watch TV”) is the converse; it does not follow from “only if.”• Option B introduces seeking brother’s company; not implied.• Option C claims absence of brother ⇒ watch TV; not stated.• Option E claims theatre implies boredom; but Theatre ⇒ Brother ⇒ Not bored, which actually blocks TV watching during theatre times. Verification / Alternative check: Construct a timeline: During theatre (with brother), not bored; thus by I’s contrapositive, no TV—consistent with D. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They confuse converse with contrapositive or add unstated behaviors. Common Pitfalls: Misinterpreting “only if,” assuming “if and only if,” or overlooking the contrapositive. Final Answer: If I am not bored, I do not watch TV.

Question 17

Consider the statements: I. All artists are whimsical. II. Some artists are drug addicts. III. Frustrated people are prone to become drug addicts.  Which of the following conclusions can be drawn?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We have three categorical statements. Two of them relate the sets Artists, Whimsical, and Drug-Addicts. The third introduces Frustrated people, but without explicit linkage to Artists. We need the conclusion that is logically compelled. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Artists ⊆ Whimsical (every artist is whimsical). II: Some Artists ⊆ Drug-Addicts (there exists at least one artist who is a drug addict). III: Frustrated ⇒ Prone to become drug addicts (tendency; not a biconditional; does not state all drug addicts are frustrated). Concept / Approach: From I and II, take the “some artists” who are drug addicts. Since all artists are whimsical, those same individuals are whimsical. Therefore, at least some drug addicts (specifically, those artists) are whimsical. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) From II, pick an element x that is an Artist and a Drug-Addict.2) From I, x (being an Artist) is Whimsical. Hence x is both a Drug-Addict and Whimsical ⇒ “Some drug addicts are whimsical.” Verification / Alternative check: Venn diagram: Put Artists entirely inside Whimsical. Shade some overlap between Artists and Drug-Addicts. The overlap sits inside Whimsical, confirming the conclusion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • (a), (d): Introduce “frustrated” without support; III is directional and general, not tying artists to frustration.• (c): Over-generalises III (not every frustrated person becomes a drug addict).• (e): Incorrect because a definite subset relationship was derived. Common Pitfalls: Forcing conclusions that require reversing implications; reading “prone to become” as “are.” Final Answer: Some drug addicts are whimsical.

Question 18

Statements: I. Only students can participate in the race. (Hence, every participant is a student.) II. Some participants in the race are girls. III. All girl participants in the race are invited for coaching.  Which one of the following conclusions …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This verbal-reasoning item is a classic syllogism. We are given three set relationships about students, participants, and girls invited for coaching. The task is to deduce what must be true in all models that satisfy the premises. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Only students can participate ⇒ Participants ⊆ Students. II: Some participants are girls ⇒ ∃ at least one participant who is a girl (hence also a student by I). III: All girl participants are invited for coaching ⇒ (Participants ∩ Girls) ⊆ Invited. Concept / Approach: Translate each sentence into a set inclusion. Focus first on what is asserted universally (I and III) before interpreting the existential information (II). The safest conclusion is one that follows from universal containment and does not overreach. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) From I, every participant is necessarily a student. This alone yields “All participants in the race are students.”2) II simply guarantees at least one girl participant; with III, those girl participants are invited, but this does not make all participants invited.3) There is no premise asserting that all students (or all participants) are invited—only girl participants are guaranteed invited. Verification / Alternative check: Construct a Venn model with Participants entirely inside Students. Place some participants in the overlap with Girls to be Invited. Non-girl participants need not be invited. The statement “All participants are students” holds in every such model. Why Other Options Are Wrong: • (a) Overgeneralises invitation from “girl participants” to all participants.• (b) Extends invitation to all students without support.• (d)/(e) contradict set relations or add unsupported restrictions. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “only if” style constraints and assuming converses; promoting existential facts (“some”) to universals (“all”). Final Answer: All participants in the race are students.

Question 19

Statements: A. All the students in my class are intelligent. B. Rashmi is not intelligent.  Which conclusion necessarily follows?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines contrapositive reasoning. From a universal statement about all students in a class, and a fact about Rashmi, we must deduce Rashmi’s membership relative to that class. Given Data / Assumptions: A: If x is a student of my class, then x is intelligent. B: Rashmi is not intelligent. No other information about Rashmi’s skills or roles. Concept / Approach: Use the contrapositive of the universal conditional. From “Student ⇒ Intelligent,” we obtain “Not Intelligent ⇒ Not a Student (of my class).” This is a logically equivalent form and is guaranteed to hold if the original universal holds. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Statement A: Student(class) ⇒ Intelligent.2) Contrapositive: Not Intelligent ⇒ Not Student(class).3) From B (Rashmi not intelligent) apply step 2: Rashmi is not a student of my class. Verification / Alternative check: Test the options against models: If any model satisfies A and B but falsifies the conclusion, discard it. There is no such model; in every case, Rashmi must be outside the set “students of my class.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: • (a) Normative advice, not a logical consequence.• (c) Contradicts A (says some students are not intelligent).• (d)/(e) Introduce unrelated attributes. Common Pitfalls: Confusing converse (Intelligent ⇒ Student) with contrapositive; adding irrelevant real-world assumptions. Final Answer: Rashmi is not a student of my class.

Question 20

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

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: From two statements—(A) the constitution (as a document) assures fundamental rights and (B) Parliament may amend the constitution—we must determine what, if anything, follows about Parliament’s role in assuring those rights. Given Data / Assumptions: A: Source of assurance = the constitution, not identified as an act of Parliament in the premise. B: Parliament has amendment power, but there is no statement that Parliament authored the rights or removed/withheld them. Concept / Approach: Differentiate between “who assures” and “who can amend.” The presence of a power to amend does not imply authorship of a particular clause nor denial of it. Hence both conclusions need independent support that is not present. Step-by-Step Solution: • Conclusion I (“Parliament included fundamental rights”) does not follow because the premise never attributes authorship of those provisions to Parliament.• Conclusion II (“Parliament did not assure the fundamental rights”) also does not follow; A says the constitution assures them, but this is silent on Parliament’s role in creating/assuring them. Verification / Alternative check: Create two models: (1) Rights drafted by a constituent assembly; (2) Rights later amended by Parliament. Both satisfy A and B, yet neither confirm I nor II. Hence neither conclusion is necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any choice asserting I or II overreaches beyond the premises. Common Pitfalls: Confusing capacity to amend with original authorship; importing constitutional history not stated in the premises. Final Answer: None of the above.

Statement and Conclusion Questions