Question - Statements Questions and Answers

Answer: D

Correct answer: Neither I nor II follows

The statement defines a hypochondriac as someone who is not stupid yet behaves stupidly, which separates the two rather than joining them, so conclusion I contradicts the definition. Conclusion II makes a claim about normal people, who are not mentioned at all - the statement describes one particular kind of person and says nothing about anybody else.

Answer: B

(I) is talking about other classes which cannot be inferred from the given statement. This is not an assumption. (II) is an assumption as this is clearly expressed in the given statement with the use of the words 'atrociously priced'.

Answer: D

The statement tells us that patients having high blood pressure were found to be having some worry or the other. At first glance it appears that having high blood pressure is connected to worry. However, on closer inspection we can see that there is no definitive evidence, medical or otherwise, to show that worry causes high blood pressure or vice-versa in the given statement. It is possible that this link is purely coincidental, hence any conclusion which shows a definitive link between the two is to be avoided. Conclusion I follows on account of the word 'may' which links the two terms 'worry' and 'blood pressure'. Conclusion II, which is the converse of I, also follows on account of the word 'may not'. Hence, both conclusion I and II follow.

Answer: D

Correct answer: Only II follows

The word to notice is alleged: the killings are attributed to Maoists without their having acknowledged them, which is conclusion II. Conclusion I supplies a version of the land dispute that the statement does not give, and conclusion III adds an escape that is nowhere mentioned. A report of a killing over a land row settles neither the rights of the dispute nor the fate of anyone not killed.

Answer: C

Correct answer: The X company’s market is monopolistic.

The two statements work together. A market with competition would be an oligopoly; here a single company is the sole provider, so there is no competition and the market is a monopoly by definition. Nothing is said about ownership or conduct, so the options describing the company as corrupt or publicly owned have no support, and the last directly contradicts the second statement.

Answer: C

The sentence tells us that whenever a new ship arrives at the port, all the black marketeers of foreign currencies are seen at the port. The sentence does not tell us that black marketeers are always seen near ports, neither does it tell us that the arrival of a new ship is the 'only' reason for the black marketeers to be at the port. Therefore, a common fallacy here could be to assume that if a certain black marketeers was seen at the port, it means a new ship arrived. Given that Mr. A, a black marketeer, is at the port-does not conclusively prove that a ship has arrived, neither can we disprove the fact that a ship has arrived. However, out of the two given conclusions, one of them definitely follows. Thus, either I or II but not both follow.

Answer: D

Correct answer: if neither I nor II follows.

The statement records what the actor did and nothing about why. Conclusion I supplies one motive, patriotism, and conclusion II another, difficulty abroad; both are plausible and neither is stated. Where a statement reports an action without giving a reason, no particular reason follows from it, however natural the guess.

Answer: D

The nuclear-haves [countries possessing nuclear weapons] raised certain facts after the Indian explosions. These explosions also gave Indians a sense of pride. This does not imply that the nuclear-haves would never have realised the facts otherwise. The meaning of the phrase "sense of pride" used in the statement is different from the meaning of "proud people" used in assumption (I). Neither (I) nor (II) is an assumption.

Answer: C

Correct answer: Only I and III follow

If this is the first time two women have received the prize in medicine, then the prize has been awarded in medicine before - conclusion I - and the emphasis on the number implies that women had received it before, singly, which is conclusion III. Conclusion II concerns economics, a different prize altogether, on which the statement says nothing.

Answer: D

The statement is a rather philosophical one which states that the world is neither good nor bad and that each person interprets the world in his/her own way. This basically means that every person perceives this world in his/her terms. This implies that some people could perceive the good side of the world and some others would see the bad side. But we cannot generalise and say that all people find the world good or that all find it bad. The objection in the above case is to the use of the word 'all' which would mean a sweeping generalisation which is something that is not supported by the given statement. However, in this case conclusion I and II both follow on account of the word 'some'.