Statements: Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutions by…
2025
Statements: Government has spoiled many top ranking financial institutions by appointing bureaucrats as Directors of these institutions.
Conclusions:
I. Government should appoint Directors of the financial institutes taking into consideration the expertise of the person in the area of finance.
II. The Director of the financial institute should have expertise commensurate with the financial work carried out by the institute.
- A.
Only conclusion I follows
- B.
Only conclusion II follows
- C.
Either conclusion I or II follows
- D.
Both I and II follow
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Concept: In Statement–Conclusion reasoning, a conclusion 'follows' only if it is a necessary, direct inference drawn from the statement alone — it must not bring in outside assumptions or a merely related opinion. When a statement supports two such conclusions and those conclusions are not mutually exclusive (they do not contradict each other), both conclusions follow together.
Application: The statement criticizes the government for damaging top financial institutions by appointing bureaucrats — people without finance expertise — as Directors. This criticism directly implies that Directors should instead be chosen on the basis of financial expertise; that is exactly what conclusion I states. The same criticism, read the other way, also implies that a Director's expertise should be commensurate with (match the scale and nature of) the financial work the institute actually carries out; that is exactly what conclusion II states. Both conclusions are direct restatements of the same underlying criticism, phrased from two angles, so neither goes beyond what the statement already supports.
Cross-check — why the other framings don't fit:
A framing that keeps only the 'appoint on the basis of expertise' conclusion and drops the 'expertise commensurate with financial work' conclusion incorrectly treats the second as an unsupported add-on, when it is the same criticism stated differently.
A framing that keeps only the 'expertise commensurate with financial work' conclusion and drops the 'appoint on the basis of expertise' conclusion makes the same mistake in reverse.
A framing that treats the two conclusions as alternatives (only one can hold, not both) misapplies the 'either/or' pattern, which is reserved for conclusions that are genuinely contradictory or exhaustive opposites — here the two conclusions are compatible restatements of one idea, not opposing alternatives, so they are not an either/or pair.
Result: Since both conclusions are valid, non-contradictory inferences from the statement, both conclusion I and conclusion II follow together.