Question 1 of 5
Statement: Some dogs are very friendly and can be trained to help people.
Conclusions:
I. All dogs are friendly.
II. Some dogs can be trained to help people.
A
A. Only conclusion I follows
B
B. Only conclusion II follows
C
C. Both I and II follow
D
D. Neither I nor II follows
Why: The statement indicates that 'some dogs' are friendly and trainable, which directly supports conclusion II that 'some dogs can be trained to help people.' However, it does not state that 'all dogs' are friendly, so conclusion I does not logically follow as it overgeneralizes from 'some' to 'all.' Therefore, only conclusion II follows, corresponding to option B.[1]
Question 2 of 5
Statement: The population of City A is growing at a rate of 10% annually.
Conclusions:
I. City A will face housing shortages in the future.
II. City A has a larger population than City B.
A
A. Only conclusion I follows
B
B. Only conclusion II follows
C
C. Both I and II follow
D
D. Neither I nor II follows
Why: The statement provides only the growth rate of City A's population at 10% annually. It does not mention anything about housing availability, infrastructure capacity, or potential shortages, so conclusion I cannot be logically derived. Similarly, no information is given about City B or any comparison of population sizes, making conclusion II unsupported. Thus, neither conclusion follows, which is option D.[2]
Question 3 of 5
Statement: The government has launched an initiative to plant 10 million trees across the country.
Conclusions:
I. The government is concerned about the environment.
II. The initiative will completely solve the issue of deforestation.
A
A. Only conclusion I follows
B
B. Only conclusion II follows
C
C. Both I and II follow
D
D. Neither I nor II follows
Why: Launching a tree-planting initiative logically implies governmental concern for environmental issues like deforestation and climate change, directly supporting conclusion I. However, planting 10 million trees, while significant, does not guarantee complete resolution of deforestation, which involves multiple complex factors beyond just tree planting. Thus, only conclusion I follows, option A.[2]
Question 4 of 5
Statement: Gold prices are rising each day in the market.
Conclusions:
I. Nobody wears gold nowadays.
II. It has become tougher to locate gold deposits.
A
A. Only conclusion I follows
B
B. Only conclusion II follows
C
C. Both I and II follow
D
D. Neither I nor II follows
Why: The rising gold prices indicate market demand or supply issues but provide no information about current wearing habits or mining difficulties. Conclusion I assumes reduced consumption without evidence, and conclusion II relates to supply sources not mentioned. Therefore, neither conclusion logically follows from the statement, option D.[4]
Question 5 of 5
Statement: Agrima took part in a State-level singing competition and won it.
Conclusions:
I. Agrima is the best singer in the country.
II. Agrima can dance well.
A
A. Only conclusion I follows
B
B. Only conclusion II follows
C
C. Both I and II follow
D
D. Neither I nor II follows
Why: Winning a state-level competition demonstrates excellence at that level but does not extend to being the national best (conclusion I), as national competitions involve broader competition. No information about dancing skills is provided, so conclusion II is unrelated. Hence, neither follows, option D.[4]
