In each question below is given a statement followed by two conclusions…

2023202320252024

In each question below is given a statement followed by two conclusions numbered I and 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.

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.

  1. A.

    Only conclusion I follows

  2. B.

    Only conclusion II follows

  3. C.

    Either I or II follows

  4. D.

    Neither I nor II follows

  5. E.

    Both I and II follow

Attempted by 4 students.

Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: E

Concept: In statement-and-conclusion reasoning, a conclusion "follows" only when it is a necessary inference drawn strictly from the statement, without bringing in outside assumptions or general knowledge. An "Either...or" verdict applies only when the two conclusions form a genuinely exclusive pair, where accepting one requires rejecting the other. "Both follow" applies when each conclusion is independently supported by the statement and the two do not contradict each other.

Application:

  1. The statement's criticism — that appointing bureaucrats (candidates without financial expertise) as Directors spoiled these financial institutions — implies that the appointees lacked financial expertise and that this mismatch is what caused the harm.

  2. Conclusion I calls for appointing Directors based on their expertise in finance. This directly restates the corrective inference drawn from the statement, so it is supported.

  3. Conclusion II calls for a Director's expertise to match the specific financial work of the institute. This narrows the same inference to institute-specific fit; it is also directly supported and does not conflict with conclusion I.

Cross-check: Conclusions I and II both call for finance-related expertise — one in general terms, one matched to the institute's own work — so they reinforce rather than compete with each other. Since neither contradicts the other and each traces directly to the statement's own critique, the "Either...or" format (which needs the two conclusions to be mutually exclusive) does not fit, and "Neither" (which needs neither conclusion to be supported) is also ruled out — both conclusions I and II follow.

Explore the full course: Infosys Preparation