In each question below is given a statement followed by two conclusions…
2023
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: The 'Official Secrets Act' (OSA) enacted by the ABC government during the war seems to be one of the major sources of corruption in the country X.
Conclusions:
The OSA has to be abolished immediately to put an end to the corruption in the country X.
The ABC government had an intention of encouraging corruption in the government offices.
- A.
Only conclusion I follows
- B.
Only conclusion II follows
- C.
Either I or II follows
- D.
Neither I nor II follows
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Concept: In statement–conclusion reasoning, a conclusion ‘follows beyond reasonable doubt’ only when it is a necessary, direct consequence of exactly what the statement says — no assumed intent, no exaggerated remedy, and no scope wider than the statement supports. A hedge word such as ‘seems to be’ cannot be read as a certain, absolute fact.
Application:
Conclusion I: The statement calls OSA ‘one of the major sources’ of corruption, not the only cause, and uses the tentative word ‘seems’. Conclusion I demands OSA’s immediate abolition to ‘put an end to’ corruption altogether — this both treats a hedged claim as certain and ignores that other sources of corruption would remain even after abolishing OSA. So Conclusion I does not follow.
Conclusion II: The statement only reports that OSA later appears linked to corruption; it says nothing about the ABC government’s purpose when enacting the law. Inferring an intention to encourage corruption from an apparent side effect is an unsupported assumption, so Conclusion II does not follow.
Cross-check: The ‘Either I or II follows’ option applies only when the two conclusions are complementary opposites on the same issue. Here Conclusion I is a policy prescription and Conclusion II is a claim about government intent — two unrelated issues, not a complementary pair — so that option is ruled out too.
Therefore, neither conclusion is a necessary consequence of the statement, so 'Neither I nor II follows' is correct.