Reasoning Aptitude
STATEMENT CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES MCQs
I and II are the proper courses of actions as the terrorist can attack at any place.II is not proper course of action, as this cannot be done immediately.
Here the lack of energy medical facilities.I follows, as it profits the emergency medical facility.II is based on assumption that hospitals does not have such facilities.III is not a proper course of action as that may cause a new problem to the vehicles travelling on roads.
The problem to be solved is to reduce the amount spent on printing documents.Choice (1) is not practically implementable. As the MPs may be at different places or the document may get mutilated when many people handle it.Choice (2) is not implementable as it may not be possible to read the document.Choice (3) is a feasible course of action. Event some cost is involved in providing laptops to all the MPs, this is a one time expenditure. With this the amount spent on printing documents can be reduced to a great extent.Choice (4) has other problems like the MPs may not be able to remember the content of the document.Hence (3) is a feasible course of action.
The statement brings out the reasons behind the government's failure to curtail drug menace.As the people involved are high profile people, it is possible that the efforts of the enforcement authority do not run smoothly. Choice (1) states that the government should increase its support to the enforcement authority. This would help them to perform their duty properly. Hence, (1) is proper course of action.Choice (2) is meaningless as the government does not support selling of drugs at all.Choice (3) is based on the assumption that drug abuse is not declared illegal. Hence, (3) is not a proper course of action.It is meaningless to have meeting with those who are actually involved in illegal activity to discuss about such activity. Hence, (4) is not a proper course of action.Hence, Choice (1) is proper course of action.
It is given that people tend to drive fast on empty and wide roads leading to accidents.Choice (1) suggests narrowing the roads. This may cause problems in the from of traffic jams. This is a short sighted decision because traffic may increase in future.Choice (2) is based on the assumption that speed limits are not displayed. It is a normal practice that speed limits are displayed wherever necessary.Display of photographs may distract the attention of drivers causing more accidents. Hence, (3) is not a proper course of action.Choice (4) does not have immediate impact on the problem.Hence, none of them is a proper course of action.
The problem to be solved is to divert the youngsters from too much of indulgence in social networking to studies.Choice (a) helps in reducing the problem as it can make some of those youngsters to understand and rectify themselves. Hence, (a) is a proper step.Banning of social network is an extreme step. Moreover it is not that social networking is bad by it self. Hence, (b) is not a proper step to be taken.Internet also helps youngsters to learn many useful things. Hence, (c) is not a proper step to be taken.Choice (d) does not specify how yoga is going to divert the youngsters from social networking to studies. Hence, (d) is not a proper step to be taken.
The given problem is that the employees posted at remote places are not discharging their duties properly. Fulfilling all the needs of the employees is not practically possible. Hence, (a) is not a proper step to be taken.If the number of surprise inspections were increased it would keep the employees alert and makes them to attend the office regularly. Hence, (b) can mitigate the problem.Choice (c) is an extreme action. There could be some genuine reasons also. Hence, (c) is not a proper step to be taken.Choice (d) creates another problem. Because without offices the government will not be able to provide services to people living in such places. Hence, (d) is not a proper step to be taken.Hence, (b) is a proper step to be taken.
Statement I says that the prime minister must be "young enough" for some explained reasons. This implies that the prime minister must not be older than a certain age limit.This statement is strong.Statement II: This says that there should not be an upper limit because older persons can perform better because of the experience gained. This is also strong.
Statement I: There are two points to be considered.(a) Whether clothing is for survival or not?(b) Can we use the leather of those animals which are killed for food?Because statement I is not explaining the answers to the above questions. It is considered to be a weak argument.Statement II: It is most likely that the reason behind the proposal is more related to morals and feelings rather than money. Foreign exchange cannot be a valid argument in this context. Hence, both are weak arguments.
Statement I: This statement is talking about a software wing for indigenious purposes [to support R and D], whereas the question is about entering the industry. This statement is irrelevant and hence the argument is weak.Statement II: This is an important point to be considered before entering any industry.