Reasoning Aptitude
STATEMENT AND CONCLUSION MCQs
Statement Conclusions And Inferences
Total Questions : 618
| Page 38 of 62 pages
Question 371.
Directions: 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 your answer:
If only conclusion I follows;If only conclusion II follows;If either I or II follows;If neither I nor II follows; andIf both I and II follow.- Statement:
- A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
- Conclusions:
- I. We should be content with what we have.
- II. We should not crave for what is not.
Answer: Option E. -> If both I and II follow.
Answer: (e)
Clearly, I follows from the fact that writing makes an exact man.
Conclusions II also directly follows from the statement.
Answer: (e)
Clearly, I follows from the fact that writing makes an exact man.
Conclusions II also directly follows from the statement.
Question 372.
Directions: 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 your answer:
If only conclusion I follows;If only conclusion II follows;If either I or II follows;If neither I nor II follows; andIf both I and II follow.- Statement:
- The 'official secrets Act' (OSA) enacted by the ABC government during the war seems to be one of the major sources of corruption in the country X.
- Conclusions:
- I. The OSA has to be abolished immediately to put an end to the corruption in the country X.
- II. The ABC government had the intention of encouraging corruption in government offices.
Answer: Option A. -> If only conclusion I follows;
Answer: (a)
The statement declares enactment of OSA as the direct cause of an increase in corruption. So, I follows.
However, the enactment of an act by a government is undertaken for the betterment and not with the intention of encouraging corruption through whatever may be the outcome later on. So, II does not follow.
Answer: (a)
The statement declares enactment of OSA as the direct cause of an increase in corruption. So, I follows.
However, the enactment of an act by a government is undertaken for the betterment and not with the intention of encouraging corruption through whatever may be the outcome later on. So, II does not follow.
Question 373.
Directions: In each of the questions given below, there is 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 your answer: (a) If only conclusion I follows (b) If only conclusion it follows (c) If either I or II follows (d) If neither I nor II follows (e) If both I and II follow.
- Statement:
- Shyam is not the father of Hari. Hari is the son of Suresh has three sons.
- Conclusions:
- I. Hari is the brother of Shyam.
- II. Suresh is the father of Hari.
Answer: Option B. -> If only conclusion II follows
Answer: (b)
Conclusion I is invalid conclusion as the relation between Hari and Shyam is not given.
Conclusion II is valid because if Hari is the son of Suresh, then Suresh will definitely be the father of Hari.
Answer: (b)
Conclusion I is invalid conclusion as the relation between Hari and Shyam is not given.
Conclusion II is valid because if Hari is the son of Suresh, then Suresh will definitely be the father of Hari.
Question 374.
Directions: In each of the questions given below, there is 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 your answer: (a) If only conclusion I follows (b) If only conclusion it follows (c) If either I or II follows (d) If neither I nor II follows (e) If both I and II follow.
- Statement:
- Fashion is a form of ugliness, so is tolerable 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.
Answer: Option D. -> If neither I nor II follows
Answer: (d)
Both I and II are invalid because they lack proper connectivity with the given statement.
Answer: (d)
Both I and II are invalid because they lack proper connectivity with the given statement.
Question 375.
Directions: In each of the questions given below, there is 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 your answer: (a) If only conclusion I follows (b) If only conclusion it follows (c) If either I or II follows (d) If neither I nor II follows (e) If both I and II follow.
- Statement:
- Crime is a function of the criminal's biological makeup 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 in warmth and affection fail to build a moral conscience in the children.
Answer: Option D. -> If neither I nor II follows
Answer: (d)
Both I and II are invalid as the statement itself is vague and ambiguous which is unable to make proper connectivity with the given conclusions.
Answer: (d)
Both I and II are invalid as the statement itself is vague and ambiguous which is unable to make proper connectivity with the given conclusions.
Question 376.
Directions: In each of the questions given below, there is 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 your answer: (a) If only conclusion I follows (b) If only conclusion it follows (c) If either I or II follows (d) If neither I nor II follows (e) If both I and II follow.
- Statement:
- Prostitution is also one of the main reasons for AIDS.
- Conclusions:
- I. AIDS is an incurable disease.
- II. AIDS cannot be completely controlled by banning prostitution only.
Answer: Option B. -> If only conclusion II follows
Answer: (b)
Prostitution is not the only reason for AIDS. It is one of main reasons of this disease. Hence, banning only prostitution cannot work 100% to control this disease. It means other factors must be considered also.
Therefore, II is a valid conclusion. Conclusion I is invalid as it has not been discussed in the statement that AIDS is curable or not.
Answer: (b)
Prostitution is not the only reason for AIDS. It is one of main reasons of this disease. Hence, banning only prostitution cannot work 100% to control this disease. It means other factors must be considered also.
Therefore, II is a valid conclusion. Conclusion I is invalid as it has not been discussed in the statement that AIDS is curable or not.
Question 377.
Directions: In each of the questions given below, there is 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 your answer: (a) If only conclusion I follows (b) If only conclusion it follows (c) If either I or II follows (d) If neither I nor II follows (e) If both I and II follow.
- 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 the deserts.
Answer: Option D. -> If neither I nor II follows
Answer: (d)
None follows as the given statement merely says that camels are very useful for deserts. It does not state whether they are cheap or available in large numbers.
Answer: (d)
None follows as the given statement merely says that camels are very useful for deserts. It does not state whether they are cheap or available in large numbers.
Answer: Option A. -> if only argument I is strong.
Statement I explains a valid reason to go against such marriages because it is wrong to encourage anything that jeopardises the health of a person. Hence, (I) is a strong argument.Statement II is not a valid argument because a custom being followed since a long time does not necessary make it good. Only I is strong.
Answer: Option D. -> if neither I nor II is strong.
Just because some poor people are improving economically, we cannot conclude that there are good politicians. Any reason could be ascribed to such an improvement. Statement II is very vague and is not giving any reasons for the argument that it proposes. Hence, both the statements are weak arguments.
Question 380. Are these sanctuaries, which are meant to protect the endangered animals, necessary?Arguments:I. Yes, these are necessary as it is our responsibility to conserve environment and to provide posterity with a better world to live in.II. No, these are a huge burden on our receding economy.
Answer: Option E. -> if both I and II are strong.
Sanctuary for endangered animals becomes necessary when it improves and betters the living conditions of the world. But at the same time, if an economy is not able to provide basic necessities to its people, then it cannot think of constructing sanctuaries. Therefore, the decision is based on both the factors viz. requirement and funds supply. Hence, both I and II are strong arguments.
Latest Videos
Latest Test Papers
Login With Google
Old way of Login
Login With Email