Assertion and Reason Questions and Answers

Answer: D

Correct answer: neither RI nor RII is the reason for the assertion

RI is an assumption about the banks’ own position that nothing in the assertion supports, and a bank flush with deposits has other ways of managing them than cutting rates across the board. RII points the wrong way altogether: a bank competing for depositors would raise its rates, not lower them. Neither is the reason.

Answer: D

Correct answer: both RI and RII are the reason for the assertion.

These are the two standard grounds on which abolition has been argued. RI is the objection in principle - that a state which kills is doing the very thing it condemns; RII is the humanitarian case - that an offender should be left the chance to repent and reform. Both have driven the abolition movement, so both are the reason.

Answer: A

Correct answer: Only RI and not RII is the reason for the assertion.

The court acted because the danger had become serious enough to warrant it, which is what RI states - pollution now threatens life. RII merely records the position that obtained until then; the fact that such vehicles had been registered describes the situation the order changed rather than the reason for changing it. So only RI is the reason.

Answer: B

"Standing next to America" cannot be taken as a valid reason for Indian defence endeavours. Any action of a government evolves out of necessity or urge for development. Hence, RII is not a valid reason.

RII is a valid reason, as India has "hostile" neighbours. "Hostile" implies the presence of inimical and dangerous neighbours, which would necessitate high level of defence preparedness. Hence, RII is a strong and valid reason.

Answer: D

Correct answer: both RI and RII are the reason for the assertion.

Both statements bear on the choice. RI gives the positive attraction - British universities have a reputation for producing good managers - and RII gives the comparative one, that the facilities are not matched elsewhere. Together they account for students preferring the United Kingdom, so both are the reason.

Answer: D

Correct answer: neither RI nor RII is the reason for the assertion.

RI assumes something improbable and unsupported: festival juries watch films with subtitles and are chosen for their judgement, not their Hindi. RII is beside the point - and inaccurate, since Hindi is an official language rather than the national one; awards go on merit, not on the language of the film. Neither is the reason.

Answer: D

RI suggests the mad rush among people to earn more money in less time, owing to which they are busy.

RII suggests that because of the availability of many sources of income, people become busy encashing them. Hence, both I and II are valid reasons.

Answer: B

RI is not valid, as it talks about the cat itself and the assertion is about a cat crossing someone's path. RII can be a valid reason. As the assertion in more of a superstition, which in all probability is based on some collection of bad events in the same regard, hence only II is the reason.

Answer: A

Correct answer: Only RI and not RII is the reason for the assertion.

RI supplies a mechanism: a child who keeps asking questions learns more, and earlier, than one who does not - which could indeed lead to exceptional attainment. RII reverses the direction of the claim, making curiosity a symptom of genius rather than a cause of it, so it cannot explain the assertion. Only RI is the reason.

Answer: A

Correct answer: Only RI and not RII is the reason for the assertion.

The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded for work done for humanity, which is exactly what RI describes - a lifetime of selfless service to the poor. RII is not to the point: writing books about peace is not by itself grounds for the prize, which rewards what a person has achieved rather than what they have written. So only RI is the reason.