Question - Statements Questions and Answers

Answer: D

Correct answer: There may be deception in glittering things.

The proverb warns that appearance and value do not always agree: something may glitter and still not be gold. That is a caution about deception, and the keyed conclusion states it with the same tentativeness. The others introduce specific claims about non-metals, gems and diamonds on which the proverb is entirely silent.

Answer: D

As per the statement, we know that many cinema producers are producing T.V. serials now a days. The statement does not throw any light on the reason for this kind of a trend. It could be that cinema's have become money guzzlers, or that the audience for movies has shrunk, or that T.V. serials have become major money spinners or it could be any combination of the above factors. We could, however, conclude that producing serials involves very much the same processes as movies, as a result of which we can see movie producers turning to television serials. The conclusions given in the question are both not supported by evidence from the statement, hence both do not follow.

Answer: D

The statement gives us certain facts and figures about a particular area. It states that 40% of the women are in government service and 70% of the overall population is in government service. From this we cannot infer anything about the remaining 60% of the women of that area. Conclusion I states that 60% of the women are employed in the private sector which is not supported by the given statement, as it could be possible that these women are not employed at all. Hence I does not follow. We can discount conclusion II by taking the following example. Let us assume that this area has 100 male and 100 female members. Of this 40 women are employed in the government service and 100 males are all employed (as 70% of the overall population is employed). From this we cannot know whether there are any couples in this area or not and hence concluding 40% of the couples are married is not possible. Thus, II does not follow.

Answer: D

Correct answer: If both I and II are implicit

A commitment presupposes two things at once. It presupposes that what is undertaken can be done, since a nation does not commit itself to an impossibility - assumption I. And it presupposes that having such commitments towards its people is a proper thing for a nation, which is assumption II; without that the declaration would have no standing. Both lie behind the sentence rather than being stated in it.

Answer: A

Here there is a competition in the market. To be a forerunner in the competition in exports one has to increase its exports. As government has reduced export duty under the assumption that the reduction in export duty will definitely help in increase in export quantity, hence, I is implicit. 

II is a conclusion, that can be drawn from the statement but is not an assumption. 

Only I is implicit.

Answer: B

The statement does not refer to high schools. Moreover it is stated that the released funds are additional funds. It is not known how the earlier funds were released. Hence, choice (1) is out of context.

As the released funds are for schools in educationally backward areas, it is clear that government is under the assumption that midday meal scheme would encourage children to go to school.

Hence, choice (2) is an assumption.

It is stated that the funds have been released, but not that they have been spent. Hence, choice (3) is out of context.

As the center is encouraging children to go to school. It can be inferred that the center wants children to go to school.

Hence, choice (4) is an inference.

Answer: B

Correct answer: Only II follows

An advertiser makes a promise only where there is a demand to be met, so the appearance of the advertisement implies a market for fair skin - which is conclusion II. Conclusion I asks us to accept the advertiser’s own claim as true, and an advertisement is evidence of what is being sold, never of whether the promise will be kept.

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: B

The statement tells us that India has a number of collaborations with Germany and this has resulted in our projects receiving financial as well as technical know-how. The statement does not tell us the fields in which we do have collaborations and neither odes it tell us that collaborations exists in every field. What we can however deduce is that a collaboration leads to an exchange of technical know-how and extension of financial aids. But we have to be careful as to not generalise this trend as the statement talks only of the case of Indian and German collaborations but not of collaborations everywhere in the world. Thus, we can say that some collaborations lead to the exchange of technical know-how and extension of financial aid. Based on this, we can eliminate conclusion I on account of the words 'every field'. However, conclusion II states exactly what we have discussed above, hence it follows.

Answer: D

Correct answer: If both I and II are implicit

The sentence is framed as a complaint, and both assumptions lie behind that framing. Reporting that people have to go to the main market presents the journey as a burden, which presupposes the market is inconveniently far - assumption I - and that the residents would rather not make it, which is assumption II. Remove either and the observation would carry no complaint at all.