Logic Questions and Answers

Answer: A

The most flawed pair is Ron's.

Tungsten is used for bulb filaments because it has a very high melting point (about 3,400°C) and a high resistivity. A filament is meant to turn electric energy into heat until it glows; a low-resistance wire that 'limits the loss of electric energy into heat' would not light up at all. So Ron's argument contradicts the very job a filament does.

The other three are sound. Light travels far faster than sound, so the flash is seen before the thunder is heard (Harry). Sea water is denser than river water, so the same ship displaces less volume and floats higher (Hermoine). A fuse wire has a low melting point and melts when the current is too large, breaking the circuit (Dobby).

Answer: B

The best example is Valerie, who has stopped paying the rent.

Violating a lease means doing something the signed lease forbids. Valerie agreed in writing to pay the monthly rent and has not paid it for three months, so she is in breach of the lease.

Tim only declines to renew, which is his right when the lease ends. Mark merely lists complaints, and Leslie only asks an attorney for advice. None of them breaks a term of the lease.

Answer: A

The best example is Jake, who offers to pay for the repair.

Restitution is compensating someone for damage you caused to their property. Jake damaged Leslie's camera lens through his own carelessness and promises to pay for the repair.

Rebecca only apologises for returning the car with little fuel and offers no compensation. Aaron's friend Tom finds damage he did not cause and calls a plumber, which is not compensation for damage he did. Lisa only suspects the company is to blame and asks it to pay, so she is not the one repairing her own damage.

Answer: D

The best example is Theo, who guesses why Emily is in tears.

Speculation is assuming something is true on inconclusive evidence. Theo sees tears and guesses a death in the family, without any proof.

Francine acts on a written policy, so her evidence is not inconclusive. Mary only regrets her choice of transport. Jennifer is confident after consulting several guidebooks and her agent, which is conclusive enough evidence, not a guess.

Answer: D

The best example is Lori's coworker, who promises a refund if the camera is not of the highest quality.

A guarantee is a promise about the quality of a product, given in writing or verbally by the person selling it. The coworker is the seller and promises her money back if the camera does not perform, which is exactly that.

Melissa's DVD player has high ratings but no promise. Curt is only advised to look for a guarantee. The auto body shop merely specialises in used cars. None of these makes a promise about quality.

Answer: B

The best example is the realtor.

Embellishing the truth is adding fictitious details or exaggerating facts. A house eleven blocks from the ocean is not waterfront, so calling it prime waterfront property exaggerates.

Isabel is giving an opinion about a play. Fred has taught for ten years, so calling himself very experienced is fair. The coach only states a likelihood. None of these invents or inflates a fact.

Answer: B

Work out the marks of each person. Sunil got 500. Rumana got 50 less than Sunil, so 450. Seema got 20 more than Rumana, so 470. Pooja got 20 less than Seema, so 450.

\[ \text{Rumana} = 450,\quad \text{Pooja} = 450 \]

So Rumana and Pooja got exactly the same marks. Pooja and Seema differ by 20, Seema and Rumana differ by 20, and Rumana and Sunil differ by 50. The answer is Rumana and Pooja, option B.

Answer: C

Ram is 5 feet tall. Mohan is 2 feet taller than Ram, so Mohan is 7 feet. Sohan is 1 foot taller than Ram, which is the sentence the question repeats, so Sohan is 6 feet. Comparing the three heights, Mohan at 7 feet is taller than Sohan at 6 feet and Ram at 5 feet. So Mohan is the tallest. Sohan is only taller than Ram, and Ram is the shortest. The heights can be fixed from the data, so the option that says the tallest cannot be determined is wrong. The answer is Mohan, option C.

Answer: C

Neither reason explains the statement. Reason I says a fly-over was built in city X in the same year, which is a different city and gives no cause for the building in city A. Reason II concerns a promise in the 2019 election manifesto, which comes after the 2018 construction and so cannot have caused it.

Since neither is a possible cause, the answer is 'Neither I nor II is a possible reason'. Choosing only I, only II or both would accept a link that the facts do not support.

Answer: B

The valid inference is R2D2 is the only robot which can repair aeroplanes.

The statements say R2D2 is a robot, it can repair aeroplanes, and no other robot can. Put together, among robots R2D2 alone can repair aeroplanes.

The other options say things the statements never mention. 'Can only repair aeroplanes' and 'can repair only aeroplanes' both claim R2D2 has no other skills or repairs nothing else, but nothing limits what else it can do. 'Only R2D2 is a robot' denies that other robots exist, yet 'no other robot' implies that other robots may well exist.