Ravi goes out with his friends only on weekends. A. It is a weekend B. Ravi…

A statement of the form “X only if Y” (here, “goes out only on weekends”) is a one-directional conditional: X → Y. It guarantees only that whenever X happens, Y must also hold — never the converse (Y → X). Every such statement also fixes its logical contrapositive, ¬Y → ¬X, which is equally guaranteed.

Apply this using D = Ravi goes out with his friends and A = it is a weekend:

1. The premise itself is the direct implication D → A: whenever Ravi goes out with his friends, it is a weekend.

2. Its contrapositive is ¬A → ¬D. Writing C = it is not a weekend and B = Ravi doesn't go out with his friends, this becomes C → B: whenever it is not a weekend, Ravi doesn't go out with his friends.

3. These are the only two relationships the premise fixes — one linking D with A, the other linking C with B — so the valid combination is AD and BC.

Checking the remaining combinations confirms this. Pairing A with C, or B with D, simply sets a statement against its own negation — a contradiction, not a deduction. Pairing A with B, or C with D, would need the day itself to force (or forbid) Ravi's going out in both directions, but the premise only restricts the day on which he goes out — it says nothing about what happens on every weekend — so neither link is guaranteed. And since a valid pairing does follow from the premise, ruling out every pairing is unsupported too.