Question - Statements Questions and Answers

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: A

The statement tells us about a policy decision of government 'X' which has announced several concessions and new attractive package tours of foreign visitors. Obviously this implies that country 'X' is serious about increasing the number of people who visit the country, but again we are not sure of the efficacy of this new policy or whether it would actually serve the intended purpose - as such no conclusion could be drawn on this aspect. Conclusion II which predicts that more people will visit the country 'X' contravenes the above discussed issue of the efficacy of the policy. Hence, it is not a valid conclusion. Conclusion I tells us about the seriousness of country 'X' in attracting foreign visitors and it definitely follows.

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: A

Correct answer: if only conclusion I follows.

The boy named the films as his inspiration and the statement offers the case as supporting a cause-and-effect theory, so the influence of films on some young minds is what the passage is actually about - conclusion I, which is carefully limited to “some”. Conclusion II generalises about young minds being adventurous, a claim about temperament that the incident does not establish.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only I and III follow

Conclusion I follows from the reference to burning flags at the gates of an embassy in a country where the Indian tricolour is the protected flag: the embassies must be foreign ones on Indian soil. Conclusion III follows from the police allowing such flags to be burnt. Conclusion II states what protestors choose to do, whereas the passage describes what the police permit - a different matter.

Answer: D

Correct answer: Only II follows

The statement itself says that October 2nd has already been named the International Day of Non-Violence, and the sentence attributes the initiative to the United Nations, so conclusion II is simply the statement restated. Conclusion I claims that countries all over the world honour the policy, and III that the UN wants every country to adopt it - neither is stated, and issuing a commemorative stamp establishes neither.

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: A

Correct answer: Only I and III follow

The speaker wants to found the first green party in India after visiting England, which points to green parties existing there - conclusion I - and he says his greens will replace red in Bengal, which is conclusion III. Conclusion II denies that “green party” is the name of a party, contradicting the statement, which uses it as exactly that.

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: A

Correct answer: The three convicts are found guilty.

The word convicted carries the conclusion within it: a court has found them guilty, and the sentence follows from that finding. The other options go further than the statement - asserting what the convicts personally did, passing judgement on their fitness to live in society, or supplying a foreign hand that no part of the statement mentions.