Discussion
Statements:
F < D xss=removed xss=removed> O > P = E
Conclusions:
(a) L > F (b) J > O
Answer: A
Correct answer: Only conclusion a follows
What survives of the statements reads \( F < D \;?\; \ldots \;?\; O > P = E \), with two relations lost from the middle of the chain.
Conclusion (b) claims \( J > O \), and J appears nowhere in the surviving statements. Nothing in what remains connects it to O, which is consistent with the key treating (b) as not following.
Conclusion (a) claims \( L > F \), and L is likewise absent from the surviving text - so the lost relations must have carried it. The only way (a) can follow is if the missing text placed L at or above D, since \( F < D \) would then give \( L > F \) by the usual rule that a chain with one strict link is strict throughout.
A note on this item: its statements have been damaged in this record. A raw < in the stored HTML swallows everything up to the next >, and in a question written entirely out of < and > signs that removes whole relations. That is why the earlier version of this explanation was wrong to say neither conclusion follows: it was written from the damaged text alone, and contradicted the key. The item needs its original statements restored before it can be worked properly.
Post your comment
Please log in or register to post a comment.
Examination Categories
- SSC Exams
- Banking Exams
- Teaching Exams
- Civil Services Exams
- Railways Exams
- Engineering Recruitment Exams
- Defence Exams
- State Government Exams
- Police Exams
- Insurance Exams
- Nursing Exams
- Other Government Exams
- NRA CET
- PG Entrance Exams
- Campus Placement
- MBA Entrance Exams
- CUET and UG Entrance
- Judiciary Exams
- Regulatory Body Exams
- Software Development