In each question below, a statement is given, followed by two conclusions…
2023
In each question below, a statement is given, followed by two conclusions numbered I & II. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then consider the two conclusions together and decide which of them logically follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the information given in the statement.
Statement: The ‘Official Secrets Act’ (OSA) enacted by the XYZ government during the war seems to be the source of much corruption in the country ‘P’.
Conclusions:
I. The Official Secrets Act has to be abolished immediately to stop corruption in country ‘P’.
II. The XYZ government wanted to encourage corruption in the government offices.
- A.
If only conclusion I follows.
- B.
If only conclusion II follows.
- C.
If either I or II follows.
- D.
If neither I nor II follows.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Concept: In a Statement-and-Conclusions question, a conclusion only ‘follows’ if it is a forced inference from the statement’s own wording, taken as true, with no outside assumptions. Two kinds of over-reach are common: (a) prescribing a specific corrective action when the statement has only identified a factor, without weighing alternatives or consequences; and (b) attributing a motive or intent to an actor when the statement describes only an outcome, not what was intended.
Application:
The statement says the OSA ‘seems to be the source of much corruption’ — this only links the Act to corruption; it does not compare abolition against any other remedy or state that removing the Act is the necessary fix.
Conclusion I demands that the Act ‘has to be abolished immediately’. Prescribing this specific, urgent action goes beyond merely identifying a source of a problem, so it is not a forced inference from the statement.
Conclusion II claims the government ‘wanted to encourage corruption’. The statement describes what the Act (enacted during the war) came to be associated with, not why it was enacted, so assigning the government this motive is not stated or implied anywhere in the text.
Since neither the prescribed action nor the claimed motive is established by the statement’s own wording, neither conclusion is a forced inference from it.
Cross-check: had the statement instead said no alternative to abolition exists, conclusion I would follow; had it said the Act was deliberately designed to protect corrupt officials, conclusion II would follow. Neither qualifier appears in the statement, which confirms the result below.
Answer: the option stating that neither conclusion follows is correct.