Statement and Conclusions - Expert Level
Practice and master this topic with our carefully crafted questions.
In each question below is given a statement followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then consider the two conclusions together and decide which of them logically follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the information given in the statement.
Give answer:
(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 and
(E) If both I and II follow.
According to the statement, 80% of the total runs were made by spinners. So, I does not follow. Nothing about the opening batsmen is mentioned in the statement. So, II also does not follow.
Statements: The old order changed yielding place to new.
Conclusions:
I.
Change is the law of
nature.
II. Discard old ideas because they are old.
Clearly, I directly follows from the given statement. Also, it is mentioned that old ideas are replaced by new ones, as thinking changes with the progressing time. So, II does not follow.
Statements: Government has spoiled many top ranking
financial institutions by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these
institutions.
Conclusions:
I. Government should
appoint Directors of the financial institutes taking into consideration the
expertise of the person in the area of finance.
II.The Director of the
financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work
carried out by the institute.
According to the statement, Government has spoiled financial institutions by appointing bureaucrats as Directors. This means that only those persons should be appointed as Directors who are experts in finance and are acquainted with the financial work of the institute. So, both I and II follow.
Statements: Prime age school-going children in urban India have now
become avid as well as more regular viewers of television, even in households
without a TV. As a result there has been an alarming decline in the extent of
readership of newspapers.
Conclusions:
I. Method of increasing the readership of newspapers should be devised.
II. A team of experts should be sent to other countries to study the impact of TV. on the readership of newspapers.
The statement concentrates on the increasing viewership of TV. and does not stress either on increasing the readership of newspapers or making studies regarding the same. So, neither I nor II follows.
Statements: People who speak too much against dowry are
those who had taken it themselves.
Conclusions:
I. It is easier said than done.
II. People have double standards
The statement clearly implies that it is easier to say than to do something and what people say is different from what they do. So, both I and II follow.
Statements: The national norm is 100 beds per thousand
populations but in this state, 150 beds per thousand are available in the
hospitals.
Conclusions:
I. Our national norm is
appropriate.
II. The state's health system is taking adequate care in this regard.
Whether the national norm is appropriate or not cannot be said. So, I does not follow. However, more number of beds per thousand population are available in the state. So, II follows.
Statements: Our securities investments carry market risk.
Consult your investment advisor or agent before investing.
Conclusions:
I.
One should not invest in
securities.
II. The investment advisor calculates the market risk with certainty.
Investment in securities involves risk. This does not mean that one should not invest in securities. So, I does not follow. Since the statement advises one to consult investment advisor before investing, so II follows.
Statements: Money plays a vital role in politics.
Conclusions:
I. The poor can never
become politicians.
II. All the rich men take
part in politics.
Neither the poor nor the rich, but only the role of money in politics is being talked about in the statement. So, neither I nor II follows.
Statements: Vegetable prices are soaring in the market.
Conclusions:
I.
Vegetables are becoming
a rare commodity.
II. People cannot eat vegetables.
The availability of vegetables is not mentioned in the given statement. So, I does not follow Also, II is not directly related to the statement and so it also does not follow.
Statements: The manager humiliated Sachin in the presence of
his colleagues.
Conclusions:
I.
The manager did not like
Sachin.
II.
Sachin was not popular
with his colleagues.
The manager might have humiliated Sachin not because of his dislike but on account of certain negligence or mistake on his part. So, I does not follow. Also, nothing about Sachin's rapport with his colleagues can be deduced from the statement. So, II also does not follow.