(a) If only conclusion (I) follows
(b) If only conclusion (II) follows
(c) If either (I) or (II) follows
(d) If neither (I) nor (II) follows
(e) If both (I) and (II) follow
Q1. Statement:
I. All engineers are smart.
II. Akash is studying in second year engineering.
Conclusions:
I. Akash has a bright future.
II. Akash is very smart.
Q2. Statement:
A professor of K. R. Institute said “We follow some of the best and effective teaching learning practices used by leading institutes all over the world.
Conclusions:
I. Whatever is being followed by world’s leading institutes will definitely be good and useful.
II. The K. R. Institutes is one of the leading institutes of the world.
Q3 .Statement:
Each and every honest person is awarded.
Conclusions:
I. John is awarded for his work.
II. John should not be awarded because he is not an honest person.
Q4. Statement:
Camel is the ship of the desert. So, it is necessary to increase the quantity of camels for the happiness of inhabitants who lived in desert areas.
Conclusions:
I. Generally, there is no other way of traveling in desert, except camel.
II. There is a less number of camels in desert.
Directions (5-10): In each of the following question, a statement followed by two conclusions is given. You have to select a conclusion that follows from the statement. Choose
(a) If only conclusion I follows
(b) If only conclusion II follows
(c) If either I or II follows
(d) If neither I nor II follows
(e) If both I and II follow
Q5. Statement:
Three men have been jailed after they smuggled material X. They were ignorant of the fact that the material was a health threat for people.
Conclusions:
I. The smugglers will not be able to trade the material after the incident.
II. The smugglers developed physical abnormalities.
Q6. Statement:
Both India and Pakistan are democratic countries. Both have democratically elected Prime Ministers. Both prime ministers want peace.
Conclusions:
I. India and Pakistan are neighbouring countries.
II. India and Pakistan are unlikely to follow the path of confrontation.
Q7. Statement:
Statutory warning on a cigarette pack: “Smoking is injurious to health”.
Conclusions:
I. Smoking should be banned.
II. Smokers pay attention to such warnings.
Q8. Statement:
Jane takes an off from her office whenever there is a match between Barcelona and Madrid. Jane is in the office today.
Conclusions:
I. Jane always goes to the office except on Barcelona-Madrid match days.
II. There is no match between Barcelona and Madrid today.
Q9. Statement:
There were a couple of my friends who had come to my office party and I joined them.
Conclusions:
I. Some of my friends didn’t come to my office party.
II. Those, who didn’t come went to some other party.
Q10. Statement:
“Smoking is not allowed here. If you smoke here, a penalty of Rs. 2000 shall be imposed.”
Conclusions:
I. This note/warning is written at all non-smoking zones.
II. Same fine is imposed for other such offences.
Directions (11-15): In each of the following questions, a statement followed by two conclusions is given. You have to select a conclusion that follows the statement. Choose
(a) If only conclusion (I) follows
(b) If only conclusion (II) follows
(c) If either (I) or (II) follows
(d) If neither (I) nor (II) follows
(e) If both (I) and (II) follow
Q11. Statement:
After the 93rd amendment to the constitution, Government has an obligation to provide free education to all children from 6-14 years of age.
Conclusions:
I. It was not the responsibility of the government to provide education for the children before the 93rd amendment.
II. This step will help the government to achieve the goal of 100 percent literacy.
Q12. Statement:
There are glaring inequalities between man and woman. Laws can ensure an ordered society but only hard work will help us to achieve the social objective of economic goals.
Conclusions:
I. Only hard work can remove economic inequalities.
II. Economic equality is more important than discipline.
Q13. Statement:
The Delhi Government is planning to introduce a bill in the State Legislature to impose a tax on vehicles, which are registered outside the state and entering Delhi.
Conclusions:
I. The Government intends to discourage people from using their vehicles.
II. The Government is trying to augment its incomes through the tax.
Q14. Statement:
A teacher teaches three subjects in the school. No other teacher in the school teaches three subjects.
Conclusions:
I. Some of the teachers in the school teach more than three subjects.
II. Only one teacher in the school teaches exactly three subjects.
Q15. Statement:
Samridhi didn’t attend our meeting in the backyard.
Conclusions:
I. She has never attended any of our meetings which were scheduled in the backyard.
II. She has missed a lot of meetings in the cabinet.
Solutions
S1. Ans.(d)
Sol. Neither of the conclusions is directly related to the statements as they do not infer anything about the future of engineering students. According to the statements, all engineers are smart but every student studying engineering needn’t be smart.
S2. Ans.(a)
Sol. The first conclusion follows the statement as the statement shows the practices used by leading institutes as a positive feature of K. R. Institute but using these practices do not mean that the institute is among the world’s leading institutes.
S3. Ans.(b)
Sol. Conclusion (I) is not correct because it does not indicate anything which is described in the given statement. Therefore, only conclusion (II) follows the statement because it indicates towards ‘honesty’ and ‘award’.
S4. Ans.(e)
Sol. Here, both conclusions are valid for the given statement. Hence, both conclusions (I) and (II) follow the statement.
S5. Ans.(d)
Sol. Neither of the given conclusions follows. The smugglers were arrested for smuggling the material. It is possible that once they come out of jail, they start smuggling again. It cannot be concluded that they develop abnormalities, as no information has been given regarding the effects of material X on the smugglers.
S6. Ans.(d)
Sol. Conclusion (I) is negated as the main statements do not provide a hint on whether India and Pakistan are neighbours. Conclusion (II) cannot be inferred as we do not know Prime Minister has absolute authority in matters of confrontation.
S7. Ans.(d)
Sol. Both the conclusions cannot be concluded from the given statement. Conclusion (I) is a vague statement and opinion while conclusion (II) is an assumption.
S8. Ans.(b)
Sol. Jane might go on leave due to some other reasons as well. Therefore, conclusion I is invalid. It is mentioned in the question statement that Jane definitely takes an off when there is a Barcelona-Madrid match and she is present in the office today which implies that there no match between Barcelona and Madrid today. Thus conclusion II follows.
S9. Ans.(a)
Sol. The question statement intents that some of my friends didn’t come (as ‘couple of my friends came’ is mentioned). Therefore, Conclusion (I) follows. We cannot conclude the second conclusion as there is no mentioning of who didn’t come and where did they go.
S10. Ans.(d)
Sol. It is clearly mentioned in the question statement that smoking is not allowed ‘here’ which necessarily does not mean that it is written at all no-smoking zones. Also, we cannot conclude about the fine imposed on other offences as there is no information given for the same. Therefore, neither of the conclusions follows.
S11. Ans.(b)
Sol. The step of making education a fundamental right will definitely help to realize the goal of 100 percent literacy. However, it cannot be concluded that the government did not shoulder the responsibility of educating the children before the 93rd amendment. Therefore, only conclusion (II) follows.
S12. Ans.(d)
Sol. When the statement talks about inequalities, it does not specify that it is regarding the economic or the social ones. We have not been given any clarity about the social objectives of economic goals. Thus conclusion (I) is quite far fetched and cannot be concluded. Conclusion (II) is irrelevant.
S13. Ans.(d)
Sol. Conclusion (I) does not follow, as it includes all the people. But the tax is intended against those who got their vehicles registered outside Delhi. Conclusion (II) does not follow, as there is no information available about the intention of the Government. So, one cannot conclude that the purpose of the tax is to augment the income.
S14. Ans.(b)
Sol. Only conclusion (II) follows as from the question statement, we can conclude that there is only one teacher who teaches exactly three subjects but we cannot certainly say anything about the other teachers.
S15. Ans.(d)
Sol. We cannot say that Samridhi has never attended any meeting in the backyard. The question statement may be one or some of the incidents and not all. Therefore, conclusion (I) is invalid. Also, the question statement only talks about the meeting(s), which was/were held in the backyard. There is no evidence of the meeting(s), held in the cabinet. Neither of the given conclusions follows.
EmoticonEmoticon