Given below are two statements – one is labelled as Assertion (A) and the…
2020
Given below are two statements – one is labelled as Assertion (A) and the other as Reason (R).
Assertion (A): Skills of oration coupled with wit and humour make classroom communication compelling.
Reason (R): Rhetorical interventions do not make classroom communication purposeful.
In the light of the above two statements choose the correct option.
- A.
Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
- B.
Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is NOT the correct explanation of (A)
- C.
(A) is true but (R) is false
- D.
(A) is false but (R) is true
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: C
An Assertion–Reason item first checks whether the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are each independently true or false, and only then whether (R), if true, actually explains why (A) holds. In classical rhetorical theory, rhetoric is the practical art of purposeful communication — oratorical technique, wit, and other rhetorical devices exist specifically to help a speaker achieve a communicative goal (to inform, persuade, or engage an audience).
Apply this to the two statements given here:
Assertion (A): skilled oration combined with wit and humour is a well-established teaching-aptitude principle for making classroom communication compelling — students stay engaged and content is more memorable when delivery is skilful and lightly humorous. So (A) holds as true.
Reason (R), taken as an independent claim: rhetorical interventions do not make classroom communication purposeful. Since rhetoric is definitionally the art of purposeful communication, rhetorical devices are tools that serve a speaker's purpose rather than defeat it — so this claim about rhetorical interventions does not hold up on its own terms.
With (A) established as true and (R) established as false, the only internally consistent combination among the four choices is the one that keeps (A) true while marking (R) false.
Contrast with the other combinations:
Both (A) and (R) true, with (R) explaining (A): even setting aside whether (R) itself holds, (R) is about whether communication serves its purpose while (A) is about what makes communication compelling — two different qualities, so (R) could never explain (A) even if it were true.
Both (A) and (R) true, with (R) not explaining (A): this correctly separates the explanation question from the truth question, but it still treats (R) as an accurate claim, which the purposeful-by-definition nature of rhetoric does not support.
(A) false but (R) true: this requires the oration/wit/humour claim to be false, but that claim is a well-supported communication-skills principle, not a false one.
So the pairing that holds is: the oration/wit/humour claim is true, and the rhetorical-interventions claim is false.